[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

Kevin Padian kpadian at berkeley.edu
Sun Sep 9 12:09:45 EDT 2012
I am in favor of implementing the Code and not waiting for the companion
volume.  I know that the editors are against this, but there is a lot of
sentiment out there that the volume is long overdue (*pace* the editors,
and I understand their position) and some even think the whole project is
dead.  -- kp



> The companion volume seems to make this impossible, of course (hence 
> item 6 of the Preamble and Art. 7.1). But how about we 
>  
> 1) make a list of the names that are to be defined in the companion 
> volume, 
> 2) write an Article that says any names on this list as well as 
> homonyms, homodefinitional synonyms and likely heterodefinitional 
> synonyms must not be published before the companion volume (we could 
> even temporarily exclude entire clades from the scope of the Code just 
> to make sure), 
> 3) write another Article that says everything in the Companion Volume 
> has precedence over everything else (which we should do anyway, see 
> below), 
> 4) and then launch the mother*ucking Code already -- if not immediately 
> after we're done discussing the current round of amendments, then on 
> January 1st, 2013? 
>  
> Is RegNum up to that task? 
>  
> What else have I overlooked? 
>  
> ==================== 
>  
> ...In any case, I just noticed, Art. 7.1 needs to be reworded, because 
> it declares the companion volume unpublished by definition: 
> "Establishment of a name can only occur after the publication date of 
> Phylonyms: a Companion to the PhyloCode, the starting date for this 
> code." The companion volume can't be published after its own publication 
> date! 
>  
> How about: 
>  
> "Establishment of a name can only occur on or after the publication date 
> of Phylonyms: a Companion to the PhyloCode, the starting date for this 
> code. Names and definitions in Phylonyms that have not been suppressed 
> by the Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature (Art. 15) have precedence 
> over all others." 
>  
> The second sentence would still apply if my suggestion above should be 
> accepted. An insertion "(see Art. 7.1)" in Art. 12.2 would also be a 
> good idea in any case. 
>  
> Compare how the ICZN establishes its order of precedence of 1) Svenska 
> Spindlar/Aranei Svecici (a consistently binominal book on Swedish 
> spiders from 1757), 2) Systema Naturae 10th edition (1758), 3) 
> everything else (1758 or later): 
>  
> "Article 3. Starting point. The date 1 January 1758 is arbitrarily fixed 
> in this Code as the date of the starting point of zoological nomenclature. 
> 3.1. Works and names published in 1758. Two works are deemed to have 
> been published on 1 January 1758: 
> - Linnaeus's Systema Naturae, 10th Edition; 
> - Clerck's Aranei Svecici. 
> Names in the latter have precedence over names in the former, but names 
> in any other work published in 1758 are deemed to have been published 
> after the 10th Edition of Systema Naturae. 
> 3.2. Names, acts and information published before 1758. No name or 
> nomenclatural act published before 1 January 1758 enters zoological 
> nomenclature, but information (such as descriptions or illustrations) 
> published before that date may be used. (See Article 8.7.1 for the 
> status of names, acts and information in works published after 1757 
> which have been suppressed for nomenclatural purposes by the Commission)." 
> 
> CPN mailing list > CPN at listserv.ohio.edu > http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn > -- Kevin Padian Department of Integrative Biology & Museum of Paleontology University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-3140 510-642-7434 http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/people/padian/home.php


More information about the CPN mailing list
View Site in Mobile | Classic
Share by: