[Previous by date - Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Previous by subject - Returned mail: see transcript for details]
[Next by subject - Siphonophora a real test case (forget Galtonia) (fwd)]
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:59:00 -0600
From: [unknown]
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Sereno05
David, The points you raised are quite pertinent--regarding authorship,=20 definitional structure, the nature of revision, etc. Several of these were presented briefly at the last meeting but did= =20 not generate discussion; they are discussed in my recent paper (Syst= =20 Biol 54:595-619). In addition, there is some discussion of what=20 might constitute the most involved case history--among dinosaur=20 taxonomists. I would be interested in feedback-positive or negative. Best regards, Paul >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> >Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:14 PM > >I apologize for the somewhat unusual length; I think this matter is = very >important. Please bear with me. > >The idea of having a Companion Volume is to avoid having a gold rush= , a >competitive race where people run to get their favorite names and >definitions registered first. I wholeheartedly agree with this inten= tion. >But the Companion Volume may not be an effective way to implement it= . It >has two potential big problems: > >- If too few people contribute as authors and editors, the risk rise= s that >unwise* or unpopular names or definitions could be set in stone. Thi= s >would just about automatically lead the LARGE number of systematists >who have never heard of phylogenetic nomenclature to despise it, and >perhaps it would even drive away some current adherents. If the numb= er >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. > >* =3D will produce confusion when the topology changes in unforeseen= but >foreseeable ways. > >The balance between these dangers is probably _very_ difficult to fi= nd, >and if we run out of luck, that balance might itself lie in an undes= irable >place (like containing many largely wise but rather unpopular names = and >definitions _and_ being published 10 years from now). > >Therefore I would like to suggest an, in my humble opinion, safer >alternative: Instead of having one volume published at once, we coul= d >spread the work over time -- by implementing the PhyloCode piecemeal= . >Here's how I imagine that: > >1. On the website, and maybe in the first issue of the Society's jou= rnal, >we post a notice that people are encouraged to publish papers (prefe= rably >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 th= e >Society's journal. This way we would make sure that we wouldn't miss= any >of them, and that all would abide to the PhyloCode. The disadvantage= would >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 >Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (or whatever part or appointe= es >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 = =66rom >provisional to durable (except maybe if the authors do not want this= anymore); >see the fourth point. >_____If they are being ignored, the CPN deletes them from the regist= ration >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 th= e point at >which the CPN makes a decision). > >4. Upon durable registration, the authors of the names stay the same= , and >priority sets in. I'm not sure if the year and the registration numb= er >should change to reflect the date of durable registration, or whethe= r they >should stay, too, which might make the Code retroactive. This issue = needs >discussion. > >5. After the nomenclature of a part of the tree has been set in ston= e in >this way, anyone can name newly discovered clades in that part and c= an >immediately register them durably, but should maybe not need to do s= o. >(This should probably be restricted to new, as opposed to converted,= names.) > >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, pri= ority >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.) > >I hope to have started a vigorous discussion (and to have elevated t= he >impact factor of PaleoBios by an order of magnitude ;-) )! > >Addendum: >It may not be easy to just cancel the Companion Volume; I hear there= is >already a hopeful publisher, and so on. But dropping it may not be >necessary. As Mike Taylor has pointed out onlist: > >"I'd just like to point out that David's proposal does not=20 >[necessarily] 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." > >I can see two potential advantages in this particular approach: > >- It would greatly lower the threshold on who is enough of an "exper= t" to >contribute. So if, for example, we don't find an entomologist, we si= mply >define Hexapoda, Insecta, Pterygota etc. ourselves and let the >entomologists discuss that. Ideally this would force them to familia= rize >themselves with PN and to start discussing definitions with each oth= er. >- It might speed up publication because it would spare the editors t= he >decision of whose preferred names get into the Companion Volume -- s= imply >include all of them! On the other hand, it might (!) be a good thing= if >our first publication were internally consistent. :-) --=20 Paul C. Sereno 1027 E. 57th Street University of Chicago Chicago, IL 60637 http://www.paulsereno.org http://www.projectexploration.org