[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Previous by subject - Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: Species Names in PN]
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:44:40 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?
Ah, here is it! :-) > --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Philip Cantino <firstname.lastname@example.org> > An: David Marjanovic <email@example.com> > Kopie: firstname.lastname@example.org > Betreff: Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume? > Datum: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:07:02 -0500 > The second scenario would entail different > starting dates for different major clades, an option that the > Advisory Group had previously considered, and it might be quite som= e > time before starting volumes for some major clades (particularly > arthropods) were completed. This would be the arthropod researchers' problem, and nobody else's := -) > Although, as Mike Taylor pointed out, your proposals could be carri= ed > out in conjunction with the companion volume, I have concerns about > some of the specifics. For one thing, I don't think it is realisti= c > for the CPN to be responsible for assessing the acceptance of all > published phylogenetically defined names after five or ten years. > This would be an immense job. Certainly (even though it should probably only apply to converted nam= es).=20 But actually we don't know how immense it will be. It may be sufficie= nt to=20 enlarge the CPN or to let it put the task on the shoulders of approve= d=20 volunteers. > Furthermore, the decision whether a particular name was being=20 > accepted, used, or ignored would be difficult to assess. There wou= ld=20 > be some clear cases, but a decision as to how many uses of a name= =20 > would constitute enough support to register it durably would be= =20 > arbitrary. If the CPN finds the decision difficult, it just doesn't decide, and= =20 instead extends the period for another term, hoping for the situation= to=20 clear up in that time. > You suggest that names that are being ignored could be > deleted from the registration database, but this would require > distinguishing lack of use that resulted from rejection by the > systematics community from lack of use that was simply a consequenc= e > of the clade not being a popular one for study or discussion. I'd say if papers on the clade appear that don't use the name in ques= tion,=20 the name is being ignored. > For names of little studied groups, it might not be possible to > get an accurate assessment of acceptance after even 10 years. Don't burden yourself with work that can't quite be done. Just extend= the=20 deadline. :-) --=20 Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie