[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode in Cladistics]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode Alphabet]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:11:53 -0500
As I said not all definitions make it to the dictionaries. Yet people= still talk and understand as first comes the speaking and then comes the dictionary makers investigating how people talk and write. This of co= urse means that a Spanish speaker does understand the word Homo. A lot of definitions that are a bit high have made it to the dictionaries. On = the part of the official PhyloCode organization the ISPN it should make i= t clear in cases where it is redefining a word however ill defined that word = is and the words planet, asteroid and even moon are excellent examples of su= ch ill definition, that the officially authorized definition of a word as established by PhyloCode is that "Blank means Blank and all its descendents." If it does that it will not be blameworthy of causing confusion. Here is an example assuming PhyloCode takes over science. = Suppose then that the ISPN defines Homo Erectus as being it and all its desce= ndents then in order to avoid confusing people so that the may think they ca= n call someone they see walking in the street Homo Erectus, the ISPN should = in such a case insist that the authorized scientific wording has to at least = be to the affect that "Homo Erectus means Homo Erectus and all its descende= nts." Yisrael P.S. It would perhaps not be advisable for the ISP to define people a= s Neanderthals. (Note to non English speakers: In English calling someo= ne a Neanderthal means your calling them kind of dumb).