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

Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati



Keesy states-- "I've often thought that implementing the PhyloCode would be a 
lot
easier if it simply used new names and didn't convert any traditional
ones. (But nothing worth it is ever easy, and a PhyloCode without
converted traditional names is not worth it.)"

I'm really curious about this apparent consensus. How come?

----- Original Message ----
From: T. Michael Keesey <keesey@gmail.com>
To: Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2007 11:58:35 AM
Subject: Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati

On 5/4/07, Jerry D. Harris <jharris@dixie.edu> wrote:
>
> This is one of those kinds of papers that I'll probably have to read a few
> times to get the overall gist of -- the discussion behind various
> phylogenetic nomenclatures is, for whatever reason, one of those things that
> doesn't go into my skull easily -- but it lays out some very good
> guidelines, at least by my reading.  How (or if) they'll ever be
> implemented, though, remains to be seen, especially for various really
> contentious definitions (e.g., Aves vs. Avialae, Ornithuromorpha vs.
> Euornithes) -- after all, it's _people_ dealing with all this rather than
> strictly logic-based machines (I wonder how the Borg would handle
> phylogenetic nomenclature...), and emotions have clearly infected some of
> these debates.

I've often thought that implementing the PhyloCode would be a lot
easier if it simply used new names and didn't convert any traditional
ones. (But nothing worth it is ever easy, and a PhyloCode without
converted traditional names is not worth it.)

> One aspect the paper doesn't really cover (though it covers
> a LOT in its brief 6 pages!), at least not explicitly, is _commonness_ of
> usage as a criterion, and in particular how a term is most commonly
> perceived/implemented, which I think is an exceedingly important, if not
> overarching, component of naming (e.g., Aves has included _Archaeopteryx_
> for over 100 years, and even the general public, when they know of
> _Archaeopteryx_ at all, understands that it is a "bird" -- the paper does
> discuss vernacular terms), which even though it was not originally
> constructed to include it (_Archaeopteryx_ being unknown to Linnaeus), to me
> automatically overrides Avialae and Aves sensu Gauthier;


We've had a long discussion on this topic here:
http://www.phylonames.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19

-- 
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
Exopolis, Inc.
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039
--
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com
ISPN Forum: http://www.phylonames.org/forum/