[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)
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