[CPN] Comments part 1

• Previous message: [CPN] time to move towards a decision on the Cellinese et al. proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Coments part 2
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

First of all my own, written on Oct. 5th and 6th and not updated in the light of other people's comments. It contains a sort of counter-/compromise proposal.

==============================

> 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). 
...which is the following:

> 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] 

• Previous message: [CPN] time to move towards a decision on the Cellinese et al. proposal
• Next message: [CPN] Coments part 2
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]