[CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal

• Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear Kevin, Mike, and all other CPN members,

     I am sympathetic to removing all dependence on other codes from the 
PhyloCode but the problem that I see with converting specific epithets 
is that we don't want to have the same name referring to a species under 
rank-based codes and a clade under the PhyloCode because as Phil pointed 
out, there are probably more userds interested in talking about species 
than about any other kind of taxa (i.e. clades). If we alienate all 
people who deal with species, we jeopardize acceptance of the PhyloCode. 
Althought perhaps adopting Lanham's solution for species names (e.g. 
/sapiens/ Linnaeus 1758) might work, if we don't put the genus name in 
front of it. The problem is that what we had envisioned initially 
allowed this as a clade address, which some readers will misinterpret. 
But this proposal might work if we were to require a unique, unambiguous 
designator for such names, like an asterisk, or a superscript "c", or 
the bracked sign that Dubois advocated (</Homo sapiens/ Linnaeus 1758>) 
or whatever else the CPN decides (e.g. /Homo sapiens/^c Linnaeus 1758). 
That way, we could allow conversion (I think) of specific epithets, 
which I know is something that Brent wants to do. That would also allow 
us to state that the PhyloCode recognizes only clade names (with an 
exception being made for specific names ruled by other codes, at least 
until the corresponding species names have been converted). We might 
still want to let people use species as specifiers to avoid obliging 
them to convert all specific epithets before providing definitions. Such 
an approach would not require any changes to PhyloCode Companion Volume 
contributions. Indeed, we don't want to do anything that would delay 
further the already much-delayed Companion Volume.

     But a remaining problem, recently pointed out by Phil, is that we 
still don't have a good formula to define clade names that would closely 
match that of established species names. Or we might have to invent one, 
such as "MNHN 1235 and all individuals that belong to the same 
evolutionary lineage", and we might define "evolutionary lineage" more 
narrowly as a set of inter-breeding individuals, but then, we run into 
the well-known problems (actually vs. potentially capable of 
inter-breeding (the latter exemplified by terrestrial forms presently 
isolated on different continents, after the sea level changed, for 
instance)? What to do about partial sterility barriers?, etc.). Such 
definitions would differ little from what is done under the rank-based 
codes (except perhaps for making more explicit the species concept 
used), which is why we decided not to do it in the first place.

     Best wishes,

     Michel

On 06/02/12 00:43, Mike Keesey wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Kevin Padian< kpadian at berkeley.edu 
>  wrote: 
>> There has been no discussion of the Cellinese et al. proposal on the CPN 
>> listserv for some time.  Perhaps everyone has said his or her piece? 
> I've been meaning to draft up a longer response, but haven't had time. 
> So I'll just raise a few points. 
>  
> The idea that rank should not be a barrier to conversion, is a 
> sensible one. One might argue that species and clades are different 
> types of taxa, but genera and clades are also different types, and 
> conversion is allowed. 
>  
> To my mind, the real problem here is orthographic, not taxonomic. 
> Clade names are uninomials, species names are binomials. The proposal 
> opts to get around this by changing the nature of clade names, so that 
> the nominal citation is an essential part of them. 
>  
> I think there are serious problems with this idea. A citation can take 
> many forms (surnames, surnames + initials, full names, first author + 
> "&  al.", etc.), meaning that a name would not have a single 
> orthography. It ruins the elegance of a system where one name, with 
> one spelling, has exactly one meaning. 
>  
> Besides, the PhyloCode already has a system for handling binomials! 
> Names of division of genera can be converted using hyphenation: 
>  http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art10.html#rec10f 
 
>  
> If species names are to be open for conversion, it seems to me it 
> ought to be consistent with how other binomials are converted (using 
> hyphenation). And names should have single, consistent spellings. 
>  
> Another question I'd like to raise: what are the consequences for the 
> Companion Volume if this proposal is adopted? Would it require another 
> round of edits to remove the dependency on species? 
>  
-- 
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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.ohio.edu/pipermail/cpn/attachments/20120206/cef2f839/attachment.html 

• Previous message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Some thoughts on how to address the Cellinese et al. species proposal
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]