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

Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"



On 27 July 2011 23:44, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, July 27, 2011 6:11 pm, Mike Taylor wrote:
>> On 27 July 2011 22:01, Scott Hartman <skeletaldrawing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Augusto Haro <augustoharo@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> *Aves* is (or should be) restricted to the crown.
>>>>>
>>>> Isn't that pre-occupied by Neornithes?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure Aves has precedent...
>>
>> When it comes to phylogenetic (as opposed to rank-based) nomenclature,
>> no name has priority over any synonym, and no definition has priority
>> over any homonym.  That is because priority starts only when the
>> PhyloCode is "implemented", which as we all know will be on January 1,
>> 200n, for some value of n >= 12.  Until that great and glorious day,
>> ALL phylogenetic names and clades are up for grabs, to be used as each
>> author sees fit.
>
> Actually, no. This ONLY applies if and when the PhyloCode becomes *THE*
> accepted authority for governing phylogenetic taxonomy. Not all people who
> use phylogenetic taxonomy accept its rules and governance, and thus there
> are many out there who do accept already present published dates as the
> precedence-stetting ones.

That is true; there are also people who do not respect the ICZN, but
we don't invite them to our parties.  Of course, the PhyloCode is not
doing itself any favours by NOT IMPLEMENTING; in the mean time, we can
hardly blame people for following some kind of informal system of
precedence-when-they-feel-like it.

Meanwhile, among adherents of phylogenetic nomenclature, the only
people I know of who don't support the PhyloCode are Sereno and some
of his students.  There may be others, but they're not known to me.

-- Mike.