Message 2005-05-0030: Re: PhyloCode

Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:26:29 +0100

[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 <>
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=
> 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=
influence on all or most dictionary publishers in the world, b) the p=
adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the dictio=
not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, which al=
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=
species or even smaller.

> As far as T Rex I was noticing for the first time that I cannot com=
> every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike t=
> word e mail which can be written as email.

I see.=20


Feedback to <> is welcome!