[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> <Judging from the presentation at the meeting in July, it's really going
> to work. :-)>
> It may be pessimistic or overly cynical, but the nature of committee is
> to seldom come to an equitable agreement on just about anything: there is
> always a compromise, things left out to satisfy one side or another, etc.
> This is why people disparage things being sent to committee.
Right. And no committee is involved in registration under the PhyloCode.
> Never is this apparently more true than in governments who's
> systems are run essentially by committee, as many Americans can tell you.
Can't be possibly worse than in Austria. :o)
> Registration is just more
> "beaurocratic red tape" to deal with, nor does it seem automatic.
It's _supposed_ not to be automatic. The author has to care about it. This
is the reason for one big advantage of the PhyloCode over the preexisting
ones: under the PhyloCode it's impossible to unintentionally create a new
name. Many deride George Olshevsky for keeping track of every single typo
and of every Kittysaurus phenomenon in the world -- but the ICZN _forces_
him to do so and to _formally_ declare each of them a synonym of the correct
names. (OK, perhaps not him, but it makes very clear that someone must do
In the current situtation, *Avgodectes* would either be registered
or not, and that would preclude the discussion we're having. (It couldn't
get registered without having a phylogenetic definition, however -- _even if
registered before publication_.)