This is largely reposted from Oct. 6th and March 29th, but incorporates Phil's proposals from Jan. 16th. I have also added more explanations (in brackets) and updated the names of the rank-based codes. The entire text of what the amended Art. 21 would look like follows. There would be just Art. 21.1, Note 21.1.1, and Rec. 21A through C, of which 21A and 21B have examples. ============================== 21.1 [includes the remains of current Art. 21.3]. This code does not govern the establishment or precedence of the names of species or of categories[*] smaller than species. To be considered available (ICZN) or validly published (ICN, ICNP), a specific or infraspecific name must satisfy the provisions of the appropriate rank-based code (e.g., ICNP, ICN, ICZN), whether it is a new name or a replacement name (e.g., ICNP: deliberate substitute name, ICN: avowed substitute name, ICZN: new replacement name). This article contains recommendations on how to avoid confusion when publishing, or using previously published, specific or infraspecific names governed by rank-based codes in conjunction with clade names governed by this code. [* This is really pedantic... I want to make clear that assigning a rank to a name doesn't automatically take that name out of the purview of the PhyloCode. Alain Dubois distinguishes "rank" and "category", "category" being for instance the kind of taxon described by a particular species concept.] [current Note 21.1.1 deleted] Note 21.1.1. In any particular classification, a species or infraspecific taxon may be identical in content to a clade, and a clade may be assigned the rank of species or that of an infraspecific category. 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 specific or infraspecific names governed by the ICNP, ICN or ICZN. However, such redundancy is likely to be limited: assigning a rank to a clade name is not a nomenclatural act under this code, 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). Rec. 21A [currently Art. 21.2, Art. 21.4 and Rec. 21.4B]. Under the rank-based codes (except the ICVCN), the name of every species or smaller category consists of two or more words, the first of which is the name of the genus to which the taxon in question is considered to belong at the moment. To satisfy this requirement, a name implicitly or explicitly associated with the rank of genus must be used when establishing a new or replacement name for a species or smaller category. 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 such a generic name as part of a new or replacement name for a species or infraspecific taxon, 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 taxon 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] [current Art. 21.2 and 21.3 deleted except as noted above] 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. Names for infraspecific taxa should be handled analogously. [current Art. 21.5 and Rec. 21A deleted; they are pretty much identical and should be merged into a Recommendation if kept; Art. 21.5 implies that there is such a thing as a species name under the PhyloCode, which there isn't]
(740) 593–9381 | Building 21, The Ridges
Ohio University | Athens OH 45701 | 740.593.1000 ADA Compliance | © 2018 Ohio University . All rights reserved.