[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati
On 5/5/07, don ohmes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
(KeesEy--well, it's a misspelling of "Giesi" anyway....)
> "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?
What would be the point of dreaming up new names for Mammalia,
Sauropoda, Passeriformes, etc. when we already have perfectly good
names in existence? If the PhyloCode avoided name conversion, anyone
using it would have to learn an entirely new vocabulary.
The basic point of the PhyloCode is to provide a simple framework for
explicitly binding names to phylogenetic entities (specifically
clades, at least for the first version of the code). Declaring names
covered by other codes off-limits would needlessly complicate matters.
(For one thing, the ICZN doesn't cover suprafamilial taxa, so names
like "Mammalia" and "Dinosauria" aren't really covered by other