[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)
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:01:24 +0200 (MEST) > From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com> >=20 >> 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? >=20 > Priority will begin with the first definition validly registered an= d > 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 (...at 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor= .org.uk )_v__/\ "I thought we played quite well, actually" -- Alex Ferguson =09 after Manchester United plc. lost 5-0 to Newcastle.