Message 2005-12-0014: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:01:24 +0200 (MEST)

[Previous by date - Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki, new Early Jurassic ornithischian from South Africa]
[Next by date - Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki, new Early Jurassic ornithischian from South Africa]
[Previous by subject - Most men will have an isolated erection problem at some time= in their lives (QUeP233VuI)]
[Next by subject - Must read!]

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:01:24 +0200 (MEST)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki

> --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: (Mike Taylor)
> Datum: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:17:01 +0100 (BST)
> [Excuse cross-posting to Dinosaur and PhyloCode lists.]

I have to keep this in. :-)

> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the ide=
> that, once the PhyloCode is implemented, there will be a much stron=
> tendency to respect strict priority in the definitions of clades, s=
> that we don't have the kinds of options that Mike and Tim are argui=
> about here?

Priority will begin with the first definition validly registered and=
published after "January 1, 200n". None of the currently published=
definitions for any clade _exists_ according to the PhyloCode.

This first and only PhyloCode-valid definition will _HOPEFULLY_ be _v=
carefully thought out. This is not as difficult as it sounds (as a fe=
published names and definitions show), but it will necessitate, in mo=
cases, large committees of authors for each name.

The ISPN or CPN will need to invite _lots_ of authors to contribute t=
o the=20
Companion Volume, even those who don't plan to use phylogenetic=20
nomenclature*, to make sure that we get names and definitions
a) that as many people as possible (!) will be able to live with,
and b) that will not collapse under their own weight within the next =
20 or=20
30 years ( least).

* This will additionally help ensure that names will mean more or les=
s the=20
same thing under all Codes. If Linnaean taxonomists start relying on =
phylogenetic definitions of the names they want to apply, we have won=

> I love the fact that the PhyloCode infrastructure includes an on-li=
> register of published clade names and definitions, but I find mysel=
> wondering whether it would be better if the register listed _all_
> published definitions of eacdh name rather than just the first (and
> only, if the recommendations are followed).

There will only one validly published definition. The goal "one name,=
meaning, and vice versa" is so promising that it is IMNSHO worth a ve=
serious try.

>  "I have no problem with [Microsoft's] success.  I have a problem
> =09 with the fact that they just make really third-rate products"
> =09 -- Steve Jobs.

Well, Word _for Mac_ _is_ a third-rate product.

NEU: Telefon-Flatrate f=FCrs dt. Festnetz! GMX Phone_Flat: 9,99 Euro/=
F=FCr DSL-Nutzer. Ohne Providerwechsel!


Feedback to <> is welcome!