Message 2005-12-0033: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:42:31 +0200 (MEST)

[Previous by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions fo=]

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:42:31 +0200 (MEST)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Forwarded by request of Jonathan Wagner. As he is not subscribed, ple=
put <> in the Cc: line of any eventu=

I, for one, am very much in favor of this general idea, although I wo=
prefer a longer time period (10-20 years). Right now, the turn-around=
for the premier vertebrate paleontology journal (JVP) is 2-3 years (!=
and I don't think five years will be enough time to get a sense of wh=
definitions have gained "general acceptance" in any field. I am actua=
in favor of suspending priority for 100 years, by which time I expect
natural selection will have determined the best (or most popular)
definitions. There is a certain poetry to the idea of allowing a
phylogenetic nomenclature to evolve on its own.

My comments:
- Journal of Paleontology is even worse; I happen to know of an artic=
that was _accepted_ a month or so ago and will prospectively be publi=
in January 2007, yes, seven... I can see why 5 years may not be enoug=
h in=20
many cases. Maybe 10 would be a good compromise.
- However, we need such a compromise. I see the poetry, but I want to=
a clear situation as soon as possible. Five or even ten years may be =
than possible, but I'm not going to wait for 100 years before _any_ n=
really become valid.
- My proposal does allow for evolution. It just dramatically turns up=
natural selection after some time. :-)

Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen f=FCr GMX Partner:


Feedback to <> is welcome!