Message 2005-12-0027: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:14:56 +0200 (MEST)

[Previous by date - Re: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts]
[Next by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Allosaurus whitei Pickering 1995, a revised online diagnosis, 13 July 2003]
[Next by subject - An invitation to free your Code [was: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Codes]]

Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:14:56 +0200 (MEST)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
Subject: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

I apologize for the somewhat unusual length; I think this matter is v=
ery=20
important. Please bear with me.

The idea of having a Companion Volume is to avoid having a gold rush,=
 a=20
competitive race where people run to get their favorite names and=
=20
definitions registered first. I wholeheartedly agree with this intent=
ion.=20
But the Companion Volume may not be an effective way to implement it.=
 It=20
has two potential big problems:

- If too few people contribute as authors and editors, the risk rises=
 that=20
unwise* or unpopular names or definitions could be set in stone, lead=
ing=20
the LARGE number of systematists who has never heard of phylogenetic=
=20
nomenclature to despise it, perhaps even driving away some current=
=20
adherents. If EITHER number becomes too large, the PhyloCode will go =
the=20
way of the BioCode.
- If too many people are involved, it will never reach publication.

* =3D will produce confusion when the topology changes in unforeseen =
but=20
foreseeable ways.

The balance between these dangers is probably _very_ difficult to fin=
d,=20
and if we run out of luck, that balance might itself lie in an undesi=
rable=20
place (like containing many largely wise but rather unpopular names a=
nd=20
definitions _and_ being published 10 years from now).

Therefore I would like to suggest an, in my humble opinion, safer=
=20
alternative: Instead of having one volume published at once, we could=
=20
spread the work over time -- by implementing the PhyloCode piecemeal.=
=20
Here's how I imagine that:

1. On the website, and maybe in the first issue of the Society's jour=
nal,=20
we post a notice that people are encouraged to publish papers (prefer=
ably=20
collaboratively) on the nomenclature of their favorite clades. Such p=
apers=20
already exist; an example (from dinosaurs, where currently the most=
=20
discussion on PN happens) is cited below.
_____Maybe the publication of such papers should be restricted to the=
=20
Society's journal. This way we would make sure that we wouldn't miss =
any=20
of them, and that all would abide to the PhyloCode. The disadvantage =
would=20
be that it would (probably) slow down the whole process.

2. The names in such a publication become _provisionally registered_.

3. A certain amount of time later (what about some five to ten years?=
) the=20
Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (or whatever part or appointee=
s=20
thereof) looks what has become of the names in that paper: Are they b=
eing=20
used? Are they being ignored? Are they still being discussed?
_____If they are in general use, the CPN changes their registration f=
rom=20
provisional to durable (except if the authors do not want this); see =
the=20
fourth point.
_____If they are being ignored, the CPN deletes them from the registr=
ation=20
database.
_____If the discussion is still going on, it won't be interrupted -- =
the=20
CPN extends the time of provisional registration by another term.
_____Depending on the CPN's workload, the duration of a term should b=
e=20
considered a minimum (if the CPN has too much to do, it can simply=
=20
consider the issue later).

4. Upon durable registration, the authors of the names stay the same,=
 and=20
priority sets in. I'm not sure if the year and the registration numbe=
rs=20
should change to reflect the date of durable registration, or whether=
 they=20
should stay, too, which might make the Code retroactive. This issue n=
eeds=20
discussion.

5. After the nomenclature of a part of the tree has been set in stone=
 in=20
this way, anyone can name newly discovered clades in that part and ca=
n=20
immediately register them durably, but should maybe not need to do so=
.

In other words, each part of the tree gets its own Companion Volume a=
nd=20
its own date for the implementation of the PhyloCode.
_____There is, by the way, a precedent for this: under the ICZN, prio=
rity=20
starts in 1758, except for the spiders which start in 1751. (This=
=20
particular publication is simply declared by the ICZN to have been=
=20
published in 1758. We don't need to do such nonsense, we have the=
=20
registration numbers.)

I hope to have started a vigorous discussion (and to have elevated th=
e=20
impact factor of PaleoBios by an order of magnitude ;-) )!

Reference:
Michael P. Taylor & Darren Naish: The phylogenetic taxonomy [sic] of=
=20
Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropoda), PaleoBios 25(2), 1 -- 7 (2005)
downloadable from http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/

--=20
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!