[Previous by date - Fw: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - No Postings?]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode Alphabet]
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:02:17 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_cYkxQcr1oSAT/teeMR941Q)
Content-type: text/plain;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
The plant was switched to another Genus based on closer examination o=
f =3D
its characteristics. This goes to show how our descriptions advance. =
=3D
This is similar to what happened when whales were no longer labeled =
=3D
fish. Still people will with qualification being implied (we usually =
=3D
call a big fish one that's for eating) call a whale a big fish just l=
ike =3D
in common usage a spider is called an insect but is not called so =
=3D
scientifically. You can exclude more and more from a group based on =
=3D
greater precision of scientific description. You can go back and fort=
h =3D
scientifically as far as including or excluding from a group provided=
=3D
that you can argue on the basis of the newer description. The old =
=3D
description more scientific or less may still be used. What's called =
a =3D
particular kind of fish by a fisherman may and many times does differ=
=3D
=66rom the scientific definition and the definitions from region to =
=3D
region. You raised a good point but switching from Genus to Genus jus=
t =3D
shows how we learn we can't assume that every description meant to be=
=3D
scientific matches up with perfect precision if perfect at all =3D
necessarily from dictionary to dictionary. People are used to that. =
=3D
Calling a bird a Dinosaur is something more of concern and confusing =
to =3D
the public then giving a plant or animal Genus after Genus. Even with=
=3D
Genus, switching toleration would not have been extended if it would =
not =3D
have matched up to descriptive ability and looked arbitrary. What peo=
ple =3D
are being asked to do with PhyloCode is to label not based on physica=
l =3D
characteristics producing confusion of the "am I going to be told we'=
re =3D
having Dinosaur for supper?" sort. I have already stated that I see n=
ow =3D
that dictionaries will not have such confusion take place after all. =
=3D20
Yisrael Asper =3D20
----- Original Message -----=3D20
From: Yisrael Asper=3D20
To: Ben Shalant=3D20
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
Dear Ben Shalant=3D20
I did not post anything because I was saying that I do not know at =
all =3D
concerning your topic.=3D20
I am just an ordinary member of the group called the PhyloCode grou=
p. =3D
I do not have a listserve or a group of my own.=3D20
I do not believe I belong to an elite club. I do trust that there h=
as =3D
been some misunderstanding that caused you to say so.=3D20
Yours truly=3D20
Yisrael Asper=3D20
----- Original Message -----=3D20
From: Ben Shalant=3D20
To: Yisrael Asper=3D20
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
No! That's your response? You didn't even post it? You must think=
=3D
you belong to an elite club, so please take me off your list serve. A=
nd =3D
for your information, the precocious Rhyniaceae family lost its best =
=3D
known land-dweller when it was determined to be a protacheophyte. It =
=3D
became Aglaophyton major. And, nobody said, then, this is all too =
=3D
qualitative, we have to switch to computer code.
Ben Shalant
On Apr 13, 2005, at 12:18 AM, Yisrael Asper wrote:
Dear Ben Shalant
No.
Yisrael Asper
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Shalant=3D20
To: Yisrael Asper=3D20
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
As someone who is studying plant diversity, (and who just recen=
tly =3D
joined your listserve), I wondered whether you were familiar with the=
=3D
difficulties in placing the very old Psiltotum sp. in a modern family=
, =3D
and differences that were found between Psilotales (living) and the =
=3D
Psilophytales (extinct) causing them to be ruled phylogenetically =
=3D
distinct?=3D20
Ben Shalant
kagawaben@cox.net
On Mar 17, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Yisrael Asper wrote:
As I said not all definitions make it to the dictionaries. Yet =
=3D
people still
talk and understand as first comes the speaking and then comes =
the
dictionary makers investigating how people talk and write. This=
of =3D
course
means that a Spanish speaker does understand the word Homo. A l=
ot =3D
of
definitions that are a bit high have made it to the dictionarie=
s. =3D
On the
part of the official PhyloCode organization the ISPN it should =
=3D
make it clear
in cases where it is redefining a word however ill defined that=
=3D
word is and
the words planet, asteroid and even moon are excellent examples=
of =3D
such 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 =
=3D
causing
confusion. Here is an example assuming PhyloCode takes over =
=3D
science. Suppose
then that the ISPN defines Homo Erectus as being it and all its=
=3D
descendents
then in order to avoid confusing people so that the may think t=
hey =3D
can call
someone they see walking in the street Homo Erectus, the ISPN =
=3D
should in such
a case insist that the authorized scientific wording has to at =
=3D
least be to
the affect that "Homo Erectus means Homo Erectus and all its =
=3D
descendents."
Yisrael
P.S. It would perhaps not be advisable for the ISP to define =
=3D
people as
Neanderthals. (Note to non English speakers: In English calling=
=3D
someone a
Neanderthal means your calling them kind of dumb).
--Boundary_(ID_cYkxQcr1oSAT/teeMR941Q)
Content-type: text/html;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D
charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3D3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2><FONT size=3D3D2>
<P align=3D3Dleft>The plant was switched to another Genus based on cl=
oser=3D20
examination of its characteristics. This goes to show how our =3D
descriptions=3D20
advance. This is similar to what happened when whales were no longer =
=3D
labeled=3D20
fish. Still people will with qualification being implied (we usually =
=3D
call a big=3D20
fish one that's for eating) call a whale a big fish just like in comm=
on =3D
usage a=3D20
spider is called an insect but is not called so scientifically. You c=
an =3D
exclude=3D20
more and more from a group based on greater precision of scientific =
=3D
description.=3D20
You can go back and forth scientifically as far as including or =3D
excluding from a=3D20
group provided that you can argue on the basis of the newer descripti=
on. =3D
The old=3D20
description more scientific or less may still be used. What's called =
a=3D20
particular kind of fish by a fisherman may and many times does differ=
=3D
=66rom the=3D20
scientific definition and the definitions from region to region. You =
=3D
raised a=3D20
good point but switching from Genus to Genus just shows how we learn =
we =3D
can't=3D20
assume that every description meant to be scientific matches up with =
=3D
perfect=3D20
precision if perfect at all necessarily from dictionary to dictionary=
. =3D
People=3D20
are used to that. Calling a bird a Dinosaur is something more of conc=
ern =3D
and=3D20
confusing to the public then giving a plant or animal Genus after Gen=
us. =3D
Even=3D20
with Genus, switching toleration would not have been extended if it =
=3D
would not=3D20
have matched up to descriptive ability and looked arbitrary. Wha=
t =3D
people=3D20
are being asked to do with PhyloCode is to label not based on physica=
l=3D20
characteristics producing confusion of the "am I going to be told we'=
re =3D
having=3D20
Dinosaur for supper?" sort. I have already stated that I see now that=
=3D20
dictionaries will not have such confusion take place after all. =
=3D
</P>
<P align=3D3Dleft>Yisrael Asper </P></FONT>
<P align=3D3Dleft></P></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=3D20
<DIV style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B=
> <A=3D20
title=3D3Dyisraelasper@comcast.net =3D
href=3D3D"mailto:yisraelasper@comcast.net">Yisrael=3D20
Asper</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3D3Dkagawaben@cox.net =3D
href=3D3D"mailto:kagawaben@cox.net">Ben=3D20
Shalant</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 25, 2005 9:51 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: PhyloCode</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D3D2>
<P align=3D3Dleft></FONT><FONT size=3D3D3>Dear Ben Shalant<FONT=
=3D20
face=3D3D"Times New Roman"> </P></FONT></FONT>
<P align=3D3Dleft>I did not post anything because I was saying that=
I do =3D
not know=3D20
at all concerning your topic.<FONT face=3D3D"Times New Roman"> =
=3D
</P></FONT>
<P align=3D3Dleft>I am just an ordinary member of the group called =
the =3D
PhyloCode=3D20
group. I do not have a listserve or a group of my own. </P>
<P align=3D3Dleft>I do not believe I belong to an elite club. I do =
trust =3D
that=3D20
there has been some misunderstanding that caused you to say so. </P=
>
<P align=3D3Dleft>Yours truly<FONT face=3D3D"Times New Roman"> =
=3D
</P></FONT><FONT=3D20
size=3D3D2>
<P align=3D3Dleft><FONT size=3D3D3>Yisrael Asp</FONT>er</FONT><FONT=
=3D20
face=3D3D"Times New Roman"> </P></FONT>
<P align=3D3Dleft><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3D3Dltr=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;=
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=3D20
style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
=3D
black"><B>From:</B>=3D20
<A title=3D3Dkagawaben@cox.net href=3D3D"mailto:kagawaben@cox.net=
">Ben =3D
Shalant</A>=3D20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =3D
title=3D3Dyisraelasper@comcast.net=3D20
href=3D3D"mailto:yisraelasper@comcast.net">Yisrael Asper</A> </DI=
V>
<DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, April 23=
, =3D
2005 3:08=3D20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: PhyloCode</=
DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT><FONT face=3D3DArial =
=3D
size=3D3D2></FONT><FONT=3D20
face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT><FONT face=3D3DArial =3D
size=3D3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>No! That's=3D20
your response? You didn't even post it? You must think you belong=
to =3D
an=3D20
elite club, so please take me off your list serve. And for your =
=3D
information,=3D20
the precocious Rhyniaceae family lost its best known land-dweller=
=3D
when it=3D20
was determined to be a protacheophyte. It became <U>Aglaophyton</=
U>=3D20
<U>major</U>. And, nobody said, then, this is all too qualitative=
, =3D
we have=3D20
to switch to computer code.<BR>Ben Shalant<BR><BR>On Apr 13, 2005=
, =3D
at 12:18=3D20
AM, Yisrael Asper wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Dear Ben Shalant<BR>No.<BR>Yisrael =3D
Asper<BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?x-tad-bigger>----- Original =
=3D
Message=3D20
-----<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily><BR><?fontfamily><?param =
=3D
Arial><?x-tad-bigger><?/x-tad-bigger><B><?x-tad-bigger>From:<?/x-tad-=
bigg=3D
er></B><?x-tad-bigger>=3D20
<?/x-tad-bigger><?color><?param 0000,0000,EEED><?x-tad-bigger>Ben =
=3D
Shalant<?/x-tad-bigger><?/color><?x-tad-bigger> =3D
<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =3D
Arial><?x-tad-bigger>To:<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamil=
y><?=3D
param Arial><?x-tad-bigger>=3D20
<?/x-tad-bigger><?color><?param 0000,0000,EEED><?x-tad-bigger>Yisrael=
=3D20
Asper<?/x-tad-bigger><?/color><?x-tad-bigger> =3D
<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =3D
Arial><?x-tad-bigger>Sent:<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfam=
ily>=3D
<?param Arial><?x-tad-bigger>=3D20
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 12:17 =3D
AM<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =3D
Arial><?x-tad-bigger>Subject:<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily></B><?font=
fami=3D
ly><?param Arial><?x-tad-bigger>=3D20
Re: PhyloCode<?/x-tad-bigger><?/fontfamily><BR><BR>As someone w=
ho =3D
is=3D20
studying plant diversity, (and who just recently joined your =
=3D
listserve), I=3D20
wondered whether you were familiar with the difficulties in =
=3D
placing the=3D20
very old Psiltotum sp. in a modern family, and differences that=
=3D
were found=3D20
between Psilotales (living) and the Psilophytales (extinct) =
=3D
causing them=3D20
to be ruled phylogenetically distinct? <BR><BR>Ben=3D20
Shalant<BR>kagawaben@cox.net<BR>On Mar 17, 2005, at 12:11 PM, =
=3D
Yisrael=3D20
Asper wrote:<BR><BR><BR>As I said not all definitions make it t=
o =3D
the=3D20
dictionaries. Yet people still<BR>talk and understand as first =
=3D
comes the=3D20
speaking and then comes the<BR>dictionary makers investigating =
how =3D
people=3D20
talk and write. This of course<BR>means that a Spanish speaker =
=3D
does=3D20
understand the word Homo. A lot of<BR>definitions that are a bi=
t =3D
high have=3D20
made it to the dictionaries. On the<BR>part of the official =
=3D
PhyloCode=3D20
organization the ISPN it should make it clear<BR>in cases where=
it =3D
is=3D20
redefining a word however ill defined that word is and<BR>the =
=3D
words=3D20
planet, asteroid and even moon are excellent examples of such=
=3D20
ill<BR>definition, that the officially authorized definition of=
a =3D
word=3D20
as<BR>established by PhyloCode is that "Blank means Blank and a=
ll=3D20
its<BR>descendents." If it does that it will not be blameworthy=
of =3D
causing<BR>confusion. Here is an example assuming PhyloCode tak=
es =3D
over=3D20
science. Suppose<BR>then that the ISPN defines Homo Erectus as =
=3D
being it=3D20
and all its descendents<BR>then in order to avoid confusing peo=
ple =3D
so that=3D20
the may think they can call<BR>someone they see walking in the =
=3D
street Homo=3D20
Erectus, the ISPN should in such<BR>a case insist that the =
=3D
authorized=3D20
scientific wording has to at least be to<BR>the affect that "Ho=
mo =3D
Erectus=3D20
means Homo Erectus and all its =3D
descendents."<BR><BR>Yisrael<BR><BR>P.S. It=3D20
would perhaps not be advisable for the ISP to define people=
=3D20
as<BR>Neanderthals. (Note to non English speakers: In English =
=3D
calling=3D20
someone a<BR>Neanderthal means your calling them kind of=3D20
dumb).<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTM=
L>
--Boundary_(ID_cYkxQcr1oSAT/teeMR941Q)--