[Previous by date - Repost: Proposal about names with prefixes (and suffixes?)]
[Next by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Previous by subject - Phylocode Email Archive Back On-Line]
[Next by subject - Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:50:13 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Phylocode and Evolution
Under Phylocode the Theory of Evolution would be defined as? Terminol= ogy wise the current definition doesn't conform to PhyloCode naturall= y.=20 Yisrael Asper=20 yisraelasper@comcast.net=20 Pittsburgh PA > I am reposting this (with a few small modifications) because I thin= k this > year's congress season is over, so more people might read it now th= an the > first time... >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:14 PM >=20 > I apologize for the somewhat unusual length; I think this matter is= very > important. Please bear with me. >=20 > The idea of having a Companion Volume is to avoid having a gold rus= h, a > competitive race where people run to get their favorite names and > definitions registered first. I wholeheartedly agree with this inte= ntion. > But the Companion Volume may not be an effective way to implement i= t. It > has two potential big problems: >=20 > - If too few people contribute as authors and editors, the risk ris= es that > unwise* or unpopular names or definitions could be set in stone. Th= is > would just about automatically lead the LARGE number of systematist= s > who have never heard of phylogenetic nomenclature to despise it, an= d > perhaps it would even drive away some current adherents. If the num= ber > of people in EITHER group becomes too large, the PhyloCode will go > the way of the BioCode. > - If too many people are involved, it will never reach publication. >=20 > * =3D will produce confusion when the topology changes in unforesee= n but > foreseeable ways. >=20 > The balance between these dangers is probably _very_ difficult to f= ind, > and if we run out of luck, that balance might itself lie in an unde= sirable > place (like containing many largely wise but rather unpopular names= and > definitions _and_ being published 10 years from now). >=20 > Therefore I would like to suggest an, in my humble opinion, safer > alternative: Instead of having one volume published at once, we cou= ld > spread the work over time -- by implementing the PhyloCode piecemea= l. > Here's how I imagine that: >=20 > 1. On the website, and maybe in the first issue of the Society's jo= urnal, > we post a notice that people are encouraged to publish papers (pref= erably > collaboratively) on the nomenclature of their favorite clades. Such= papers > already exist; two examples (from tetrapods, where -- unfortunately= -- > almost all of the current discussion on PN happens) are cited below= . > _____Maybe the publication of such papers should be restricted to t= he > Society's journal. This way we would make sure that we wouldn't mis= s any > of them, and that all would abide to the PhyloCode. The disadvantag= e would > be that it would (probably) slow down the whole process. >=20 > 2. The names in such a publication become _provisionally registered= _. >=20 > 3. A certain amount of time later (what about some five to ten year= s?) the > Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (or whatever part or appoint= ees > thereof) looks what has become of the names in that paper: Are they= being > used? Are they being ignored? Are they still being discussed? > _____If they are in general use, the CPN changes their registration= from > provisional to durable (except maybe if the authors do not want thi= s=20 > anymore); > see the fourth point. > _____If they are being ignored, the CPN deletes them from the regis= tration > database. > _____If the discussion is still going on, it won't be interrupted -= - the > CPN extends the time of provisional registration by another term. > _____Depending on the CPN's workload, the duration of a term should= be > considered a minimum (if the CPN has too much to do, it can simply > consider the issue later; all terms are automatically extended to t= he point=20 > at > which the CPN makes a decision). >=20 > 4. Upon durable registration, the authors of the names stay the sam= e, and > priority sets in. I'm not sure if the year and the registration num= ber > should change to reflect the date of durable registration, or wheth= er they > should stay, too, which might make the Code retroactive. This issue= needs > discussion. >=20 > 5. After the nomenclature of a part of the tree has been set in sto= ne in > this way, anyone can name newly discovered clades in that part and = can > immediately register them durably, but should maybe not need to do = so. > (This should probably be restricted to new, as opposed to converted= , names.) >=20 > In other words, each part of the tree gets its own Companion Volume= and > its own date for the implementation of the PhyloCode. > _____There is, by the way, a precedent for this: under the ICZN, pr= iority > starts in 1758, except for the spiders which start in 1751. (This > particular publication is simply declared by the ICZN to have been > published in 1758. We don't need to do such nonsense, we have the > registration numbers.) >=20 > I hope to have started a vigorous discussion (and to have elevated = the > impact factor of PaleoBios by an order of magnitude ;-) )! >=20 > Addendum: > It may not be easy to just cancel the Companion Volume; I hear ther= e is > already a hopeful publisher, and so on. But dropping it may not be > necessary. As Mike Taylor has pointed out onlist: >=20 > "I'd just like to point out that David's proposal does not [necessa= rily]=20 > entail > discarding the Companion Volume -- 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. That way, we'd avoid painting ourselves > into a corner." >=20 > I can see two potential advantages in this particular approach: >=20 > - It would greatly lower the threshold on who is enough of an "expe= rt" to > contribute. So if, for example, we don't find an entomologist, we s= imply > define Hexapoda, Insecta, Pterygota etc. ourselves and let the > entomologists discuss that. Ideally this would force them to famili= arize > themselves with PN and to start discussing definitions with each ot= her. > - It might speed up publication because it would spare the editors = the > decision of whose preferred names get into the Companion Volume -- = simply > include all of them! On the other hand, it might (!) be a good thin= g if > our first publication were internally consistent. :-) >=20 > References: > - Walter G. Joyce, John F. Parham & Jacques Gauthier: Developing a = protocol > for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically de= fined=20 > clade > names, as exemplified by turtles, Journal of Paleontology 78(5), 98= 9 -- 1013 > (2004) > - Michael P. Taylor & Darren Naish: The phylogenetic taxonomy [sic]= of > Diplodocoidea (Dinosauria: Sauropoda), PaleoBios 25(2), 1 -- 7 (200= 5) > downloadable from http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/pubs/=20