Message 2005-05-0027: Re: PhyloCode

Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:55:59 +0100

[Previous by date - PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:55:59 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode

>I have a new proposal that perhaps everyone can agree with. To have =
it be
> that the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording in
> Dictionaries wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should st=
> that
> the definition includes all of the descendents. If this is done the
> Thanksgiving day clause's objective will be fulfilled. What do you =

I don't think we could have much of an influence on dictionaries. Sci=
jargon is scientific jargon, and the English language is the English=
language. We're not trying to change the English or any other languag=
we're trying to codify scientific jargon.

>> a T Rex (I can't say Trex I see as it wouldn't be understood. So m=
uch for
>> heresy with this),

I don't understand. Do you mean the spelling (which is *T. rex*, in i=
instead of with asterisks)?

>> P.S. Humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

*Homo sapiens sapiens*.

>> What is PhyloCode going to do with that?

Probably this will stay as it is, with the difference that *Homo* won=
't be a=20
genus anymore. However, the rules for species names -- as opposed to =
names -- are being written right now. Currently some 15 different pro=
exist. We'll see...=20


Feedback to <> is welcome!