[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

• Previous message: [CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?
• Next message: [CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Michel, please go ahead.  I think there will be fair representation of
views on both boards.  -- kp


> Hello all, 
>  
> I also like very much this proposal. The Companion Volume is 
> progressing, but slowly, judging that only one of my dozen proposed 
> contributions has made it to acceptance, so far (after eight years!). 
>  
> On a technical note, however, I think that this would require approval 
> of both the CPN (for the modifications of the codes) and the Council 
> (as it involves a decision that the ISPN must make). I also know that 
> the three editors are rather against this, but this should really be 
> decided by our committees, not solely by three editors. 
>  
> So, one of us who is on the Council should make a former proposal. 
> Kevin (Padian), do you want to do it? If not, I can do it. 
>  
> Cheers, 
>  
> Michel 
>  
> Quoting Kevin Padian < kpadian at berkeley.edu 
>: 
>  
>> 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 synonyms must not be published before the companion volume (we could 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 
 
>>  
>>  
>> 
 
>> CPN mailing list 
>>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
 
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 
>  
>  
>  
-- 
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 

• Previous message: [CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?
• Next message: [CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]