[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati
Anthony Docimo writes:
> >> > "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.
> Don't you have to do that anyway?
> as things are, *Tyrannosaurus rex* is "Tyrannosaurus rex" whether its in a
> paper written in China, the US, Peru, or Iran. everyone knows what a
> Tyrannosaurus is, what the name means, and what it's relations to other
> animals are.
That fact will be completely unaffected by the PhyloCode, which does
not so much as touch on the matters of genus and species taxonomy. It
is entirely to do with clades.
> >The basic point of the PhyloCode is to provide a simple framework for
> >explicitly binding names to phylogenetic entities
> I'd love to know what happens when an animal gets placed and named in
> PhyloCode, only to then be relocated to another place and name. :D
Nothing at all.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "It's the wrong kind of snow" -- British Rail spokesman,
explaining why trains aren't running.