[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)
Subject: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?
Forwarded by request of Jonathan Wagner. As he is not subscribed, ple= ase=20 put <email@example.com> in the Cc: line of any eventu= al=20 replies. >> I, for one, am very much in favor of this general idea, although I wo= uld prefer a longer time period (10-20 years). Right now, the turn-around= time 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= ich definitions have gained "general acceptance" in any field. I am actua= lly 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= le=20 that was _accepted_ a month or so ago and will prospectively be publi= shed=20 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= have=20 a clear situation as soon as possible. Five or even ten years may be = less=20 than possible, but I'm not going to wait for 100 years before _any_ n= ames=20 really become valid. - My proposal does allow for evolution. It just dramatically turns up= =20 natural selection after some time. :-) --=20 Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko! Satte Provisionen f=FCr GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner