[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 <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
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= ate=20 > that > the definition includes all of the descendents. If this is done the > Thanksgiving day clause's objective will be fulfilled. What do you = say? I don't think we could have much of an influence on dictionaries. Sci= entific=20 jargon is scientific jargon, and the English language is the English= =20 language. We're not trying to change the English or any other languag= e,=20 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= talics=20 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 = clade=20 names -- are being written right now. Currently some 15 different pro= posals=20 exist. We'll see...=20