Message 2005-12-0063: Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:44:40 +0100 (MET)

[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)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Ah, here is it! :-)

> --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht ---
> Von: Philip Cantino <>
> An: David Marjanovic <>
> Kopie:
> 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=
> 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=
> 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=
> 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=
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=

> Furthermore, the decision whether a particular name was being=20
> accepted, used, or ignored would be difficult to assess.  There wou=
> be some clear cases, but a decision as to how many uses of a name=
> would constitute enough support to register it durably would be=
> arbitrary.

If the CPN finds the decision difficult, it just doesn't decide, and=
instead extends the period for another term, hoping for the situation=
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=
> 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=
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=
deadline. :-)

Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat


Feedback to <> is welcome!