[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - RE:PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:21:51 -0500
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
I am not saying for sure the Linnaean system will evaporate even cert= ainly not without a fight but I do see that if and it could be fast since I= have seen remarkably quickly radical scientific ideas become accepted as t= he consensus nowadays, PhyloCode becomes accepted and it would not shock= me if it does then the ISPN will be its official representative and it's definitions if not its soundness always will be accepted by the scien= tific community. A parallel is with the IAU in the Astronomical community w= hich has like it or not the final word on what is what in the heavens. We = can argue that the asteroid Ceres is a planet for instance but unless the= IAU were to say that then it's just us talking. For the record I don't wa= nt Ceres being declared a planet. Why? because it's a part of a belt nam= ely the Asteroid Belt. As for PhyloCode I would not be the least bit surprise= d if in ten years or less it is accepted. Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "David Marjanovic" <email@example.com> To: "PML" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 6:00 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > > If PhyloCode becomes adopted then the ISPN would be able to exert= so much > > influence on all dictionary publishers in the world since when it= comes to > > the scientific definitions they would be dependent on the officia= l > > pronouncements of the scientific community and either accept or r= eject > > them > > as being in usage but they could not invent their own. > > Do you expect that on January 1, 200n, the Linnaean system will immediately > evaporate, without a fight? I _hope_ that by then more _professiona= l > systematic biologists_ will have _heard_ of PN than not. I do think= you will > be right -- in (n + 20). Or perhaps as soon as in (n + 10), but tha= t must be > doubted.