Message 2005-05-0032: Re: PhyloCode

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:18 +0100

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

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:18 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode

> If PhyloCode becomes adopted then the ISPN would be able to exert s=
o much
> influence on all dictionary publishers in the world since when it c=
omes to
> the scientific definitions they would be dependent on the official
> pronouncements of the scientific community and either accept or rej=
ect=20
> them
> as being in usage but they could not invent their own.

Do you expect that on January 1, 200n, the Linnaean system will immed=
iately=20
evaporate, without a fight? I _hope_ that by then more _professional=
=20
systematic biologists_ will have _heard_ of PN than not. I do think y=
ou will=20
be right -- in (n + 20). Or perhaps as soon as in (n + 10), but that =
must be=20
doubted.=20

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!