Message 2006-01-0003: PhyloCode: How much will the Committee have to do?

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:32:17 +0100 (MET)

[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]
Subject: PhyloCode: How much will the Committee have to do?

A few months ago I proposed to widely disperse the starting date of t=
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 where the latest issue of the ICZN Bullet=
in is
online (free access); the first three of the four parts, "New Applica=
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=
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 =
start to quietly drop the capital C of "PhyloCode". It looks a bit si=
(thus potentially driving away conservative scholars) -- like a brand=
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=

DSL-Aktion wegen gro=DFer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verl=E4ngert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos*


Feedback to <> is welcome!