[Previous by date - re: phylocode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:31:34 -0500
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
Up until now, the traditional codes have had virtually no influence o= n dictionary definitions. Whether things will be different for the Phy= loCode is an open question. Kevin >>> Yisrael Asper <firstname.lastname@example.org> 03/16/05 17:56 PM >>> 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 com= es to the scientific definitions they would be dependent on the official pronouncements of the scientific community and either accept or rejec= t them as being in usage but they could not invent their own. For instance i= f a plant were declared by official pronouncement by the scientific commu= nity to be defined by fiat a person a dictionary may feel it should not inclu= de it or include it with qualification but they would be hard pressed to sa= y that the scientific definition is something else since right or wrong at t= he moment it would be the official scientific definition. Remember if we= were a thousand years ago to say we could land on the moon we would be laugh= ed at as simpletons by scientists since the moon was considered attached to= a sphere. It's true that a thousand years ago there wasn't officially t= he scientific method as established by Isaac Newton but a lot of science= was done all the way to Galileo who established the scientific method of mechanics for earth but just couldn't extend it to the heavens. Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "David Marjanovic" <email@example.com> To: "PML" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:26 PM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > > Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so t= hat you > > are > > insistent that a particular wording should be the official scient= ific > > 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 > > Dictionaries > > wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should state that th= e > > definition includes all of the descendents. If you do that the pu= blic can > > 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= public > adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the dictionaries > not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, which = always > 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 c= ombine > > every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike= the > > word e mail which can be written as email. > > I see.