[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Some PhyloCode Considerations



  [ I have a few posts to reply to (to Ken, Philidor, et al.)
but felt I should reply to this one now ... will try to get my
replies out as soon as I can, work is busy and I'm training
someone plus looking for a new place to live -- Saturday was a
boom-day for me :) ]

T. Mike Keesey (tmk@dinosauricon.com ) wrote:

<<I think this will be a fairly automated process. And it's a
*great* idea -- no more accidental usage of preoccupied names.>>

George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:
 
<No, it's a lousy idea. The way things are set up now, one
occasionally petitions the ICZN to >remove< a name; imagine
instead having to petition to >add< a name every time you need
one. This is a clear loss of freedom to name taxa.>

  This is not how the PhyloCode has suggested the petition
process. It would be a simple matter of publishing the
description, sending a copy to the IPN [not established], and
sitting back. Petition works as in ICZN, when a name or
definition is in conflict, and needs a board of revue. I see
this as a process that adds a means of recording information
upon publication instead of "oh, there was a paper that came out
first, and the idea behind the new name is better than the old, one..."

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/