[Previous by date - PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions]
[Next by date - PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:28:02 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>, PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions
----- Original Message -----=20 =46rom: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:24 AM > [crossposted to the PhyloCode mailing list for discussuon] > > I had written: > > <<That would not be a tremendously difficult and problematic issue.= =20 > Imagine > that Hermann von Meyer has been dead over a century, so someone ELS= E will=20 > have > to "register" the name FOR him, or do it for themselves.>> > > David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote: > > <Er... yes, of course. Where's the problem?> > > Imperiosity. It would be required to not only get a name published= , but=20 > to > get it approved for validity by a system of people (or in fact, a= =20 > _person_), > whom will choose to do so only via application of the definition. I don't understand what you mean. Please explain. > Furthermore, that person (note the singular, as suggested by the d= PC's > authors) will determine this process, priority, etc. No recommendat= ion in=20 > the > current dPC Article 8 currently involves checks and balances. That's true, and it's one of the reasons for my proposal to greatly= =20 complicate the meaning of "January 1, 200n". > The authorship, timing, and relegation of > database nomenclature, for example, could become easily out of sync= with=20 > the > publication record, simply because of this process; I don't understand. > I might take this further, by arguing that the application of the= =20 > registrar > and registrator require paper trails, at least digitally, but the p= urpose=20 > of > these has no legitimate, simply legalistic, purpose, for the sake o= f > publication. Their existence seems superfluous. "They" is the paper trails? > Yet aside from this, Art. 8 of > the dPC considers (and elsewhere advocates that) names not validate= d in=20 > this > database are not valid, whether published or not. This leads to iss= ues of > synonymy, for when names ARE registered, they can cause a distrupti= on in=20 > the > historical record and their argument of precedence as has been=20 > historically > recognized by the ICBN and ICZN, such as (close to home, perhaps) f= inding=20 > its > popularity warranting of *Brontosaurus* Marsh, 1879 over *Apatosaur= us*=20 > Marsh, > 1877, or *crassipes* von Meyer, 1857 over *lithographica* von Meyer= , 1861. In these two cases, at the very least, we can be reasonably certain t= hat the=20 most widely used names (*Apatosaurus* and *lithographica*) would be= =20 converted first. If (which I can hardly imagine) someone with malicio= us=20 intentions would do otherwise, it would cause quite an uproar, and ve= ry soon=20 someone would petition the CPN to overturn these cases, which it woul= d=20 certainly do. However, I think we can easily add something along the lines of the= =20 following to the draft PhyloCode: ---------------------------------------------------- Rule: Names that are objectively invalid under the preexisting codes= =20 (unconserved junior homonyms, unconserved junior objective=20 [ICZN]/nomenclatural [ICBN] synonyms, nomina oblita, names suppressed= by=20 conservation) must not be converted. Recommendation: Names that are widely considered subjectively invalid= under=20 the preexisting codes (unconserved junior subjective [ICZN]/taxonomic= [ICBN]=20 synonyms) should not be converted. ---------------------------------------------------- What do you think? > Issues of priority would either have to be rewritten, or some names= ,=20 > despite > their existence, simply ignored or forgotten. I have suggested, per= haps=20 > not > here, that a direct transposition of the current ICZN taxonomic Nom= ina > Conservanda and such be adopted, simply to avoid this, and all name= s=20 > currently > held valid be considered valid by the dPC officiators. This seems t= o have=20 > been > met with silence. Well, nothing is valid if it isn't registered, and nothing can be reg= istered=20 that doesn't have a definition. A wholesale conversion of all nomina= =20 conservanda cannot happen for this reason; we will have to wait for s= omeone=20 defining any of them. We can't convert names that don't belong to a c= lade. > Only new names would have to undergo the registration > process, All names will be new in the sense that they will receive a valid def= inition=20 _for the first time_ on or after "January 1, 200n". > thereby avoiding the issue of trying to register names out of curre= nt > sequence based on some person's personal idealism about what names = are=20 > better > than others (on that person's OWN considerations). My proposal does the same -- doesn't it? > <Well, either you discuss that with her, ideally resulting in a coa= uthored > publication.> > > I have discussed this with Dr. Clarke. The results of that discuss= ion are=20 > not > public, so I will not air them here. However, the issue of coauthor= ing in=20 > any > case is a problematic area I touched on before: most systematists a= re out=20 > there > working on their own phylogenies, and many will reject the ideas of= others > based on their personal view points. In principle this is no problem -- just word the definitions carefull= y=20 enough that they work under all of those phylogenies (respectively= =20 self-destruct under phylogenies under which their contents would chan= ge too=20 drastically). > There are taxonomic "cliques" (in American > parlance) as much as there are those who are "lone wolves" (more pa= rlance, > going about their own way and rejecting community efforts). That sa= id,=20 > there > are some who gather large groups to compound ideas and form real co= mmunal > efforts on taxonomy, but these are the exception, not the rule. My proposal includes giving great support to large community efforts. > The tendency > for few specialists in research position dealing in major inter-tax= on > systematics (and thus those more prone to reviewing and revising su= ch=20 > taxonomy) > tends to cause some, such as latter days' Steel or Gray, to revise = swaths=20 > of > nomenclature on their own prerogative, or Seeley, often without muc= h as a=20 > "by > your leave" and often getting into nomenclature wars. There was in = fact a=20 > minor > "war" between Joel Cracraft [at the AMNH] and Storrs Olson [at the= =20 > Smithsonian] > involved in "order-based" avian systematics that eventually led to= =20 > Cracraft in > rejecting the ranks in favor of the then imminent Sibley and Alqvis= t,=20 > whose > work was also, while lauded, largely rejected by order-based system= atists, > including Alan Feduccia. If even these leading researchers couldn't= agree=20 > on > the nature of systematics, how should we get them, or me and those = who=20 > disagree > with me or I with them, into a single paper together? Most likely we won't get those people to help who think that hardly a= nyone,=20 including themselves, will ever use the PhyloCode. But to get those w= ho=20 think it won't go the way of the BioCode should be relatively easy. E= veryone=20 profits if everyone uses the same names for about the same groups, ev= en if=20 they use different codes to regulate those names. > Today, we have a system founded on ranks, but > surprisingly, a lot of the arguments of precedence and foundation c= an be=20 > found > in the dPC, which honors its forbearers' insight. But while rank-ba= sed=20 > practice > in the ICZN and ICBN are deeply entrenched, they are not so innate = as to=20 > render > their removal destructive, simply by revising the elements that ref= er to=20 > ranks, > and allowing all suprageneric names to be establishable as clades, = and=20 > have > provisions for definitional addenda to the establishment of names, = will=20 > cause > more ease I think than many people realize. I disagree. Mesozoic dinosaur genera behave very well; apart from the= =20 occasional splitting or lumping of genera that are thought to be=20 sister-groups, they remain stable except for the rare cases that a ne= wly=20 discovered species does not get a genus name of its own, and almost a= ll=20 contain a single known species. If you look into the plants or frogs,= for=20 example, horror will stare in your face. Genera containing "sections"= =20 containing subgenera containing 3/4-official "species groups" contain= ing a=20 dozen species each... It would make some sense to cut off the nomencl= ature=20 of some taxa above the genus level, but for others this is the "speci= es=20 group" level, while for yet others the subgenus level would be approp= riate.=20 There are simply too many different traditions to make such a thing w= ork. > <My proposal is maybe 10 years -- plus some pressure so that the= =20 > discussion > actually happens!> > > ... > > <This may not be the right day to say it, but I don't think any of = the > rank-based codes can be saved... sorry for the pun.> > > People are human, and whatever our pure-minded motives, names have= a=20 > property > value, signified by the authorship. They will fight over their prop= erty,=20 > as > much as they should, since it in the end signifies their scientific > acheivements and establishes their history. Many, such as Dobzhansk= y, or=20 > Lyell, > have been able to establish their names through works of LOGIC and= =20 > observation > without having to resort to scientific names, but I dare say many o= f us=20 > now are > tied to our names and find it important to hold on them, since they= =20 > usually > indicate we will be working on those areas for decades to come. This is why I suggest to promote big community efforts. > In fact, after a decade of de Queiroz and > Gauthier publishing on the abandonment of ranks, (In journals that were, at that time, the insider bulletins > we come back to researchers > who use the Linnaean system and yet offer definitions, Who, for example? Has Benton started publishing explicit definitions? > consider parts of the ICZN perhaps more suggestive than enforcing, Benton :-) > To get the [I]CZN to agree, of course, is going > to be HARD work, and it requires a compounding response in the biol= ogical > community. This will take DECADES (yah, pessimistically). Why bother? We don't need it.=20