[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Why so aggressive/frustrated this time? Or am I misinterpreting your tone?
> <Right. And no committee is involved in registration under the PhyloCode.>
> And any so-called automated process has even more flaws in that it
> removes a set of checks and balances that a review process undergoes.
It isn't automated. If you coin a name and want it to be valid, you have to
visit the registration database (available online, of course) and submit it.
The webmaster will register it as soon as you notify him/her of publication.
8.1. In order for a name to be established under the PhyloCode, the name and
other required information must be submitted to the PhyloCode registration
database. A name may be submitted to the database prior to acceptance for
publication, but it is not registered (i.e., given a registration number)
until the author notifies the database that the paper or book in which the
name will appear has been accepted for publication.
No more nomina nuda.
> There will and must always be a human element in the process of "deciding"
> validity. There will be a person to enter nomenclature into database, and
> there will be one (or more) person(s) to determine if the qualifications
> have been met to be "valid" in the database, bar none. At this point,
> "registration" becomes close to "committee descision."
Hardly, because the qualifications for validity are so simple. Note that
before actually submitting the name, the author is most likely going to
search the database for a homonym (identical name) or synonym (identical
> <Can't be possibly worse than in Austria. :o)>
> Don't know the process in Austria, so there is no room for comparison in
> my case. But when you have Congresses debate and filibuster for 4 days
> straight to prevent a bill from even being _seen_ by committee, much less
> discussed by one, or to expend a debate past a critical deadline so that
> the bill _can't_ be seen until a next session opens (in over a month), it
> becomes VERY ugly. It seems odd, but committees are responsible for
> distribution of monies to road-works.
I don't know, but it wouldn't be surprised if the financing of road-building
were identical over here. Anyway, committees are good places to let ideas
disappear, and to delay discussions forever.
> <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 it.)>
> Fortunately, or unfortunately, *Avgodectes* was intentionally created.
> The ICZN notes what publications must meet to be valid, by their use
> casual mags and newspapers and such CAN'T, nor can dissertations or
> abstracts of ANYTHING.
A few dissertations _can_ be -- simply if they meet the criteria of
publication, such as public availability in enough copies. We've had that
discussion. By extrapolation, I don't believe it's regulated what a "casual"
magazine might be.
> Any statement of intent to name a taxon becomes an intentional act,
> so at which point does the PhyloCode be "better" for this?
- Under the ICZN, you _don't need_ any statement of intent. *Ricardoestesia*
and *Richardoestesia* are two different names under the ICZN (even though
they just so happen to be objective synonyms). Likewise, each and every
misspelling in a published (according to the Code) work is a new scientific
- Under the ICZN, it's enough to publish a name to make it valid. It's a
nomen nudum in that case, but still. Under the PhyloCode a name cannot
become validly published if it isn't already registered!
7.2. In order to be established, a name of a taxon must: (a) be published as
provided for by Article 4; (b) be adopted by the author(s), not merely
proposed for the sake of argument or on the condition that the group
concerned will be accepted in the future; (c) comply with the provisions of
Articles 7 and 9-11; (d) be registered as provided for in Article 8, and the
registration number be cited in the protologue; and (e) comply with the
provisions of Article 17.
And it cannot become registered as long as you haven't written a paper which
contains at the very least a definition -- _and_ got it accepted for
In other words, it is _impossible_ to create a nomen nudum under the
PhyloCode. You simply can't make a name that doesn't have _at least a
> The PhyloCode, similarly, is not designed or intended to supercede
> the ICZN/ICBN Codes, but work on the names it doesn't cover, and provide
> phylogenetic bases for defining them.
It also works on lots of names that the current codes do cover. That's
called "conversion of preexisting names".
> However, the ICZN forces NO ONE to do anything, George has decided on
> his own to catalogue names, wether they be "valid" or not, based on his
> descisions of availability.
OK... _if_ you want to follow the letter of the ICZN, _then_ it forces you
to do things like those.
> The ICZN prevented abstracts and
> dissertations/theses from being available, yet George catalogued these; if
> he had so published them, his work being considered VALID by intent, these
> names would be considered valid by the ICZN, under HIS authorship. This is
> why there was a large discussion over "nomine ex dissertatione_.
This is correct. (It's also yet another thing that couldn't happen under the
PhyloCode -- the actual authors, if anyone, would register those names, not
he.) It's a different topic, though. I was only talking about the
misspellings and the other unintentional nomina nuda.
> <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_.)>
> This may prevent it's recognition by the PhyloCode after the fact, but
> not under the ICZN.
That's an advantage of the former over the latter, and that's my point.
> Since the ICZN is not going to be superceded by the
> PhyloCode, by intent, this will not prevent *Avgodectes* from being valid
> under the rules of taxonomic nomenclature.
Yes -- that wasn't the topic at all.
> "Oh, ooops, I accidentally missed a word no editor got in formulating my
> definition, and the publication charges $5 to the page to correct this....
> Bummer, no more grant money: My 'pure' intent and agreement to both Codes
> has been made moot by a mistake in making an unclear definition, even _if_
> the intent was known -- or can be assumed after the fact."
8.2. At the submitter's request, a name or definition that he or she
proposed can be changed or removed from the registration database if it is
not yet published.
8.3. If the definition given at the time of registration differs from that
given in the protologue, then the published definition is to be considered
correct, and the database is to be annotated to alert users to the
I can't quite imagine an editor dropping a word, however.
> The PhyloCode would punish authors for an accidental mistake, and
> correctibility would be either committee-driven (as it is now) or the
> mistake would be simply uncorrectable.
Article 8.2 gives you lots of time to correct everything.
> Coining of names should NOT be keyed into the formation of a definition;
> there is a large schizm between people who agree on definitions, those who
> don't know what is meant by definition, those who disagree WITH them, or
> those who simply don't think they are vital when the meanings of "species"
> and "genus" are _quite_ clear. If it could be later used, as will happen
> at the beginning of the PhyloCode's implementation, that names can be
> defined _after the fact_, then this should be true at any time in history.
Er... a name without a definition can't be valid under the PhyloCode. If you
want to publish a name without a definition, and want people to use it,
you'll have to use the appropriate preexisting code -- as you'll have to do
for species as long as the rules for species won't be written.
> Nomenclatural availability and definition are NOT tied to each others'
> success, and the framers of the PhyloCode are aware of this, which is why
> it is not INHERENT for the name to be defined AT THE TIME it is coined, as
> per the draft PhyloCode, just that recognition follows definition under
> the Code's auspices.
Yes, and? I don't quite understand what your point is.