On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Michel Laurin < michel.laurin at upmc.fr > wrote: > > The problem is that the Companion Volume (CV below, for short) is > supposed to include the first established names under that code. If we > drop this idea, what becomes of the CV? Mike Taylor suggests that it be published after the code but that it not have any special purpose under the code (no more than any other publication that defines names). Really, he is questioning the very need for a Companion Volume. The initial impetus for the CV was to make sure that "major" clade names were well-defined when the code was implemented. However, over time the scope of the CV has diminished. Its primary purpose now seems to be to provide examples of well-defined names. But the code already serves this purpose (with one major difference: the examples in the code are just examples, not established definitions). Removing the CV as a requirement for implementing the code would require changing Item 6 in the Preamble and Art. 7.1, linking the implementation of the code to another date (e.g., the publication of the code itself, or a specific date). I'm not entirely sure I agree with Mike Taylor on everything, but I think his points should be addressed. Can we defend continuing to link the implementation of the code to the publication of the CV? -- T. Michael Keesey http://tmkeesey.net/
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.