[Previous by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume? (short!)]
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:52:46 +0200 (MEST)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?
> I'd just like to point out that David's proposal does not entail > discarding the Companion Volume -- Actually... not necessarily, no. :-) > merely that the definitions proposed in that volume, like all > others, would originally be _provisionally_ registered, > to be affirmed or rejected after a reasonable length of time. This would still require an ISPN vote, because the previous vote incl= uded=20 that the definitions in the Companion Volume would be definitive. It would, however, produce two potential advantages: - It would greatly lower the threshold on who is enough of an "expert= " to=20 contribute. So if, for example, we don't find an entomologist, we sim= ply=20 define Hexapoda, Insecta, Pterygota etc. ourselves and let the=20 entomologists discuss that. Ideally this would force them to familiar= ize=20 themselves with PN and to start discussing definitions among themselv= es. - It might speed up publication because it would spare the editors th= e=20 decision of whose preferred names get into the Companion Volume -- si= mply=20 include all of them! On the other hand, it might (!) be a good thing = if=20 our first publication would be internally consistent. :-) --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++