[Previous by date - PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:26:29 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
> Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so tha= t you=20 > are > insistent that a particular wording should be the official scientif= ic > definition it will influence the dictionaries automatically. I agree. (Though this will happen very slowly.) > So again I say to have it be that > the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording in=20 > Dictionaries > wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should state that the > definition includes all of the descendents. If you do that the publ= ic can=20 > be > won over. Why do you think so? Why would a) the ISPN be able to exert so much= =20 influence on all or most dictionary publishers in the world, b) the p= ublic=20 adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the dictio= naries=20 not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, which al= ways=20 includes all descendants? > Are there some proposals to eliminate species as a category in > PhyloCode Yes. I guess they won't have much success anytime soon, though. > thus generalizing even more living beings? How do you mean? It is no problem to name clades that are the size of= =20 species or even smaller. > As far as T Rex I was noticing for the first time that I cannot com= bine > every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike t= he > word e mail which can be written as email. I see.=20