Message 2005-12-0024: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts

Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:25:04 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - =3D?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Stormbergia_dangershoeki,_new_Early_Jurassic_or=]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangersho=]
[Previous by subject - Benton's paper]
[Next by subject - Call for nominations, PN meeting]

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 20:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Phylocode <>
Subject: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts

Today in the _New York Times_ (Oct. 11, 2005), Carol Yaesuk Yoon writ=
es on "In
The Classification Kingdom, Only the Fittest Survives" on the nature =
of the
naming still to be done as science marches on: (subscription

  While Yoon does not mention the PhyloCode, she does mention the Bio=
which would serve to restrict how and where and when a name can be co=
ined, as
does the PhyloCode. So, for the sake of discussion, what will happen =
if both
Codes are established, and a name is coined in one, but not the other=
? Will the
name need to be published in two different formats to exists as "vali=
d"? Will
the ICZN recognize the PhyloCode? Or will all that is needed is a def=
applied to a BioCode name to make a name published valid in PhyloCode
standards? If there are competing Codes, what does a scientist do whe=
analyzing data and taxa rendered from a study not "accepted" by the C=
ode that
person chooses to use?


Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Yahoo! Music Unlimited=20
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.


Feedback to <> is welcome!