[CPN] Window for comments on proposal

• Previous message: [CPN] Window for comments on proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Window for comments on proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear colleagues,

I just read David's comments on the proposal to rid the ICPN of the 
mention of "species" and I agree with David. I would like to know if the 
original proponents of this amendment would be satisfied if we decided 
to adopt this. Should we ask them, or wait till we hear from more CPN 
members? I personally think that we need more comments first, but at 
some point, we will need to discuss with them.

Best wishes,

Michel

On 11/01/12 11:02, David Marjanovic wrote:
> On 10.01.2012 19:27, David Tank wrote: 
>  
>> Hi all, 
>>  
>> 2 things. 
>>  
>> First, yes, I think that we (CPN) should get this discussion going 
>> now. If you haven't taken the time to read the proposal yet, now is 
>> a good time - if you have, and would like to comment, great. A 
>> couple folks have already - I've pasted that thread below. 
> Except for my first two comments, which weren't sent to the list, so I 
> don't even know if everyone has seen them: 
>  
> -------- Original Message -------- 
> Subject:     Re: Proposal to amend the PhyloCode 
> Date:     Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:23:57 +0200 
> From:     David Marjanovic< david.marjanovic at gmx.at 
> 
> To:     Nico Cellinese< ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
> 
> CC:     Brian Andres< brian.andres at yale.edu 
>, feander at siu.edu 
, Philip 
> Cantino< cantino at ohio.edu 
>, Kevin de Queiroz< dequeirozk at si.edu 
>, 
> Jacques Gauthier< jacques.gauthier at yale.edu 
>, 
>  walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de 
, Michael Keesey< keesey at gmail.com 
>, Michel 
> Laurin< michel.laurin at upmc.fr 
>, Richard Olmstead 
> < olmstead at u.washington.edu 
>, Kevin Padian< kpadian at berkeley.edu 
>, David 
> Tank< dtank at uidaho.edu 
>, Brent Mishler< BMishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
>, 
> "David A. Baum"< dbaum at wisc.edu 
>, torsten.eriksson at nrm.se 
 
>  
> I am not sure if we are supposed to open the discussion or wait for the 
> publication -- the manuscript is, after all, already in review. However, 
> if the former is the case... 
>  
> Preamble, item 1: I agree with the proposal. 
>  
> Art. 1.1: 
> Current: "The groups of organisms whose names are governed by this code 
> are called taxa (singular: taxon). Taxa may be clades or species, but 
> only clade names are governed by this code." 
> Proposal: "The groups of organisms whose names are governed by this code 
> are called taxa (singular: taxon). Only clade names are governed by this 
> code." 
> Why mention taxa at all, when all taxa governed by the PhyloCode are 
> clades? I would like to suggest the following: "This code governs the 
> names of clades of organisms." We could then merge this article with 
> Art. 2.1 if we think a one-sentence article is too short. :-) 
>  
> Art. 2.1: I agree with the proposal, though I like Keesey's "ancestral 
> set" even better. 
>  
> Art. 2.2, Note 3.1.1: I agree with the proposal. 
>  
> Art. 9.4 and 11, and Note 13.2.2: I disagree with the proposal. This is 
> because some well-known extant species that were named long ago, like 
> *Crocodylus niloticus*, do not have a type specimen at all, and they 
> will only be given one if doubts about their monophyly will ever come 
> up. I don't see why such species should be disallowed as specifiers. I 
> also like the current situation in which a specifier can change when the 
> type specimen of the species that is actually meant changes (because a 
> lectotype is selected from a series of syntypes, or because a neotype is 
> designated -- disclaimer: I have not tried to find out if the ICBN uses 
> these terms in the same ways as the ICZN, if at all). If PhyloCode users 
> had to select a specimen that belongs to such a species as a specifier, 
> this would, in practice, probably amount to de facto selecting a type 
> specimen under the rank-based code in question; I don't think that's a 
> good thing. 
>  
> Art. 9.5: I agree with the proposal. 
>  
> Art. 9.7: Unnamed subclades will likely be indicated, in many cases, by 
> lists of included species, so I don't think the proposal would change much. 
>  
> Rec. 9c: I agree with the proposal, though "organisms" would be better 
> than "specimens" (a museum specimen can consist of several organisms). 
>  
> Art. 10.5: I agree with the proposal. 
>  
> Art. 10.9: This is a tricky one. 
> 1) Specific epithets are (usually) not unique, so converting one 
> *vulgaris* or *mongoliensis* will prevent all others from being 
> converted in that shape. 
> 2) Converting an epithet will, in practice, lead to defining the species 
> with that name even for users of the rank-based codes. And that amounts 
> to imposing one species concept on everyone. I do not like that at all. 
> 3) I admit that I have dinosaur privilege. Among Mesozoic and older 
> vertebrates, the number of genera with more than one species is 
> negligible, so that most LITUs already have a uninominal which already 
> looks like a clade name and is already unique (except for intercode 
> homonyms like the archosaur and flowering plant *Galtonia*). This is 
> because most species concepts are not even applicable, so that species 
> are only named at all because the ICZN requires it and because it allows 
> authors to honor more colleagues than otherwise. I understand this is 
> very different from the situation most neontologists find themselves in. 
>  
> Art. 13, general proposal: I disagree. This proposal would require 
> biologists to learn not just the names of the taxa they work on, but 
> also the authors and year of each of these names. On average, that's 
> perhaps a fivefold increase of effort (many taxon names have more than 
> one author, I know some with 13 and 19). Further, it will increase 
> vanity among authors of clade names; clades should be named to make 
> talking about them easier, not to make oneself immortal. 
>  
> Art. 13.1, 13.3 and 13.5, and Note 13.2.3: These proposals almost define 
> homonyms out of existence and therefore, again, require that biologists 
> learn all relevant authors and years. I do not like that prospect at all 
> -- and I am rather unusually good at remembering numbers! 
>  
> Art. 21: I agree with the idea of removing the implication that there is 
> such a thing as a species name under the PhyloCode (which is clearest in 
> Art. 21.5 and 21.2). However, Art. 21 contains more than that; therefore 
> I do not agree with the proposal to abolish it in its entirety. 
> 1) At a minimum, the current Art. 21.4 with Rec. 21.4A and B (and all 
> their notes and examples) should be kept, because they recommend how to 
> go about naming species without having to take actions incompatible with 
> the PhyloCode and without causing confusion when two systems of 
> nomenclature are used in the same publication. 
> 2) Rec. 21.4C is a different matter; it recommends Kevin de Queiroz's 
> species concept. I think it should be replaced by a Recommendation which 
> urges authors of species names to state which species concept they have 
> in mind and to provide evidence that their new species is in fact a new 
> species under that concept -- this touches on the PhyloCode because some 
> species concepts (like the one by Baum 2009) require species to be clades. 
> 3) Completely independently of the proposal, Art. 21.3 should not be an 
> Article. It consists of a note (the statement that, because of Art. 3.1, 
> the PhyloCode does not govern names at subspecific and lower ranks) and 
> a recommendation ("their use to refer to [...] is discouraged"). If 
> kept, they should be made a Note and a Recommendation. 
> 4) Art. 21.5 and Rec. 21A are pretty much identical. If kept, they 
> should be merged into a Recommendation. 
>  
> Thus, I would like to submit my own proposal for amending Art. 21 in the 
> next e-mail (this one is long enough). 
>  
> -------- Original Message -------- 
> Subject:     Proposal to amend Article 21 
> Date:     Thu, 06 Oct 2011 01:54:05 +0200 
> From:     David Marjanovic< david.marjanovic at gmx.at 
> 
> To:     Nico Cellinese< ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu 
> 
> CC: feander at siu.edu 
, Philip Cantino< cantino at ohio.edu 
>, Kevin de 
> Queiroz< dequeirozk at si.edu 
>, Jacques Gauthier 
> < jacques.gauthier at yale.edu 
>, walter.joyce at uni-tuebingen.de 
, Michael 
> Keesey< keesey at gmail.com 
>, Michel Laurin< michel.laurin at upmc.fr 
>, 
> Richard Olmstead< olmstead at u.washington.edu 
>, Kevin Padian 
> < kpadian at berkeley.edu 
>, David Tank< dtank at uidaho.edu 
>, Brent Mishler 
> < BMishler at calmail.berkeley.edu 
>, "David A. Baum"< dbaum at wisc.edu 
>, 
>  torsten.eriksson at nrm.se 
 
>  
> The entire text of what the amended Art. 21 would look like follows: 
>  
> ============================== 
>  
> 21.1. This code does not govern the establishment or precedence of 
> species, subspecies or variety[*] names. To be considered available 
> (ICZN) or validly published (ICBN, ICNB), a (new or replacement) name 
> for a species, subspecies or variety must satisfy the provisions of the 
> appropriate rank-based code (e.g., ICNB, ICBN, ICZN). This article 
> contains recommendations on how to avoid confusion when performing 
> nomenclatural acts concerning species, subspecies or varieties in 
> publications that use clade names in ways that conform to this code. 
>  
> [* Question: is this an exhaustive list? The ICZN and the ICNB recognize 
> only the rank of subspecies below that of species; varieties, used in 
> botany, are explicitly forbidden in zoology and bacteriology.] 
>  
> [current Note 21.1.1 deleted] 
>  
> Note 21.1.1. In any particular classification, a species, subspecies or 
> variety may be identical in content to a clade, and a clade may be 
> assigned the rank of species. In such cases, intercode synonymy may 
> occur between this code and a rank-based one, because names governed by 
> this code have a different form from species, subspecies or variety 
> names governed by the ICNB, ICBN or ICZN. However, such redundancy is 
> likely to be limited: assigning a rank to a clade name governed by this 
> code is not a nomenclatural act, and the rank-based codes do not 
> recognize the adoption of any species concept as a nomenclatural act -- 
> under most species concepts, species need not be clades. This situation 
> is similar to monospecific genera under the rank-based codes (cases 
> where a genus and its type species are identical in content in a 
> particular classification). 
>  
> [current Art. 21.2 and 21.3 deleted] 
>  
> Rec. 21A [currently Art. 21.4 and Rec. 21.4B]. To satisfy the 
> requirements of the rank-based codes, a name implicitly or explicitly 
> associated with the rank of genus must be used when establishing a new 
> or replacement name for a species, subspecies or variety. For names 
> governed by the ICZN, this practice must be followed throughout the 
> publication that establishes the name (ICZN article 11.4 
>  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=11&nfv=#4 
 
>  
> ). When choosing a generic name, authors should consider the 
> nomenclatural consequences under both the appropriate rank-based code 
> and this code. In general, a generic name[*] that is also an established 
> clade name (Example 1), or is simultaneously being established as a 
> clade name (Examples 2, 3), should be selected if possible. Otherwise, 
> an existing generic name[*] may be used, even if the monophyly of the 
> taxon associated with it is unknown or doubtful (Examples 3, 4). If the 
> species to be named cannot be assigned to any taxon with which a generic 
> name[*] has been associated under the appropriate rank-based code, the 
> only option is to publish a new name to serve as a generic name under 
> that code (Examples 4, 5, 6). This name may be simultaneously 
> established as a clade name under this code (Example 5). 
>  
> [* Rec. 21.4B currently says "a generic name (ICNB, ICBN) or genus-group 
> name (ICZN)". This is wrong. Under the ICZN, the name of a species must 
> contain the name of a genus; it is not allowed to use the name of a 
> subgenus instead -- a subgeneric name may only be used in addition. Of 
> course, it is allowed to promote a subgenus to genus rank, but this is a 
> nomenclatural act separate from the naming of a new species.] 
>  
> [No changes to the Examples, except that Example 4 contains an instance 
> of *Hypotheticus* that is not italicized.] 
>  
> Rec. 21B [currently Rec. 21.4A and Rec. 21.5A]. When establishing a new 
> or replacement name for a species, subspecies or variety under the 
> appropriate rank-based code, some mechanism should be used to indicate 
> whether the generic name is an established clade name under this code. 
> If symbols are used, their meaning should be made clear. 
>  
> [No changes to the Examples, except to replace "prenomen" with "generic 
> name" throughout.] 
>  
> Rec. 21C [replaces current Rec. 21.4C]. When establishing a new species 
> name under the appropriate rank-based code, the protologue should state 
> which species concept the authors have in mind, and it should include a 
> description of the evidence indicating that the new species fulfills 
> that concept, even though the rank-based codes have no such requirements 
> or recommendations. 
>  
> [current Art. 21.5 and Rec. 21A deleted] 
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
-- 
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669 

• Previous message: [CPN] Window for comments on proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Window for comments on proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]