[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_]
[Next by date - Fwd: PhyloCode: How much will the Committee have to do?]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode in Cladistics]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:17 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: PhyloCode: How much will the Committee have to do?
A few months ago I proposed to widely disperse the starting date of t= he PhyloCode. It was pointed out that my proposal would put a lot of wor= k on the Committee. This may well be true. But this does not automatically mean that the Committee will have as much as or more to do than the ICZN and ICBN. = Today I visited http://www.iczn.org where the latest issue of the ICZN Bullet= in is online (free access); the first three of the four parts, "New Applica= tions to the Commission", "Cases" and "Comments on Cases", consist exclusiv= ely of proposals to conserve junior synonyms and homonyms. (I encourage ever= yone to have a short look at the headlines.) Because of the registration data= base and the complete lack of grandfather clauses practically none of this business awaits the CPN! While I am at it I would like to repeat my suggestion that we should = slowly start to quietly drop the capital C of "PhyloCode". It looks a bit si= lly (thus potentially driving away conservative scholars) -- like a brand= name; it seems to have been modeled after that of the BioCode, but the BioC= ode is dead, buried and fossil, so alluding to it does not make sense anymor= e. --=20 DSL-Aktion wegen gro=DFer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verl=E4ngert: GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl