[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)
Anthony Docimo writes:
> > advantages. First, species names would be identical
> > under rank-based and phylogenetic nomenclature.
> > Second, no conversion or registration of species names
> > would be required. Third, this approach would not
> > discourage systematists who are attached to binomina
> > from using the PhyloCode. Following a discussion of
> > this proposal, a nonbinding vote of the participants
> > revealed majority support. Consequently, a new
> > article will be prepared and submitted to the CPN
> > concerning the use of Linnaean binomina in the context
> > of the PhyloCode.
> >I am very pleased about this: I think that the perceived threat of
> >the PhyloCode to rank-based codes has been severely exacerbated by
> >perception that its "attack" might extend to species as well
> >(mostly suprageneric) taxon names. I am much more hopeful for a
> >reconciliation between PhyloCoders and traditionalists now that it
> >is understood what the responsibilities of the two codes are, and
> >how little they overlap
> did I read the quoted parts right?: only the Genus & Species will
> remain unchanged?
> so, now Guiness Book of World Records can have entries for "Last person to
> discover a new Class/Family/Order/Phylum"....no matter how many new
> discoveries are made.
Did you mean "CAN'T have entries"?
If so, then: the Guinness Book of World Records can include whatever
entries it wants. It already contains plenty of meaningless entries,
so adding the ones you mention won't hurt it too badly. But they
_are_ meaningless, because whether or not a newly discovered organism
is considered to represent a new class/family/order/phylum is wholly a
matter of judgement. That's always been true, and the implementation
of the PhyloCode won't change it one way or the other.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Some folks want a clean mapping, and others very expressly do
not, and I think we came up with an approach that satisfies both
views" -- Ray Denenberg.