Message 2005-12-0017: Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:11:18 +0100 (BST)

[Previous by date - =3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Stormbergia_dangershoeki,_new_Early_Jurassic_or=]
[Next by date - Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki, new Early Jurassic ornithischian from South Africa]
[Previous by subject - Re: Moore's hybrid example (was Nathan Wilson's question)]
[Next by subject - Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki]

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:11:18 +0100 (BST)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki

> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:01:24 +0200 (MEST)
> From: David Marjanovic <>
>> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the
>> idea that, once the PhyloCode is implemented, there will be a much
>> stronger tendency to respect strict priority in the definitions of
>> clades, so that we don't have the kinds of options that Mike and
>> Tim are arguing about here?
> Priority will begin with the first definition validly registered an=
> published after "January 1, 200n". None of the currently published
> definitions for any clade _exists_ according to the PhyloCode.

Indeed.  However, that merely delays the problem, doesn't solve it!

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

That's your solution?  We'll all just Get It Right This Time?

Please excuse me while I laugh so hard that several major internal
organs shoot out of my nostrils.

Seriously, I am not optimistic _at all_ about this.

> The ISPN or CPN will need to invite _lots_ of authors to contribute
> to the Companion Volume, even those who don't plan to use
> phylogenetic 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 30 years ( least).

OK, let's accept for the sake of argument that the Companion Volume
will be good.  Really, that is one percent of the problem.  The code
is quite clear that _anyone_ can publish a clade name-definition pair=
and it sticks.  Please don't try to tell me that everyone who feels
the clade they're working on merits a name is going to convene a
committee to discuss it?

 _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________=
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <>  http://www.miketaylor=
)_v__/\  "I thought we played quite well, actually" -- Alex Ferguson
=09 after Manchester United plc. lost 5-0 to Newcastle.


Feedback to <> is welcome!