Message 2005-05-0036: Re: PhyloCode

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:31:34 -0500

[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
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PhyloCode

Up until now, the traditional codes have had virtually no influence o=
dictionary definitions.  Whether things will be different for the Phy=
is an open question.

>>> Yisrael Asper <> 03/16/05 17:56 PM >>>
If PhyloCode becomes adopted then the ISPN would be able to exert so =
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=
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=
sphere. It's true that a thousand years ago there wasn't officially t=
scientific method as established by Isaac Newton but a lot of science=
done all the way to Galileo who established the scientific method of
mechanics for earth but just couldn't extend it to the heavens.


----- Original Message -----
=46rom: "David Marjanovic" <>
To: "PML" <>
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=
> > 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=
> > definition includes all of the descendents. If you do that the pu=
> > 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=
> adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the
> not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, which =
> 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 =
> species or even smaller.
> > As far as T Rex I was noticing for the first time that I cannot c=
> > every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike=
> > word e mail which can be written as email.
> I see.


Feedback to <> is welcome!