[CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals

    David Marjanovic david.marjanovic at gmx.at
    Sat Sep 29 12:38:43 EDT 2012 
    Everything not mentioned below is fine with me.

Glossary entry for "species": shouldn't "population lineage" be 
"population lineage segment"? And Note 11.1.1 makes it debatable whether 
taxa are ever used as specifiers, because it states: "When a species is 
cited as a specifier, the implicit specifier is the type of that species 
name (if a type has been designated) under the appropriate rank-based code."

Preamble Item 1: perhaps use "taxon names" instead of "scientific 
names". Nomenclature isn't science, biology isn't the only science, and 
the extant codes don't cover anatomical nomenclature...

Article 3.1 and Note 3.1.2: I prefer "taxonomic rank" over "categorical 
rank". The former is clearer; the latter will become confusing if Alain 
Dubois' proposal to use "category" and "rank" for different things ever 
spreads. He wants to use "category" for the kind of taxon that e. g. any 
particular species concept describes. This proposal has been largely 
ignored, probably because Dubois is the kind of person that loves 
inventing new terminology just for the fun of it, but it makes enough 
sense that it might be more widely adopted at some point. Interestingly, 
it is compatible with the proposed wording for the glossary entry for 
"categorical rank".

Art. 9.7: What if there is no species or subclade to which a particular 
specimen that one wants to use as a specifier can be referred? I'm 
thinking about the current practice of the people who work on Mesozoic 
dinosaurs: they use species names as a pure formality and treat the 
monospecific genus as the unit of biodiversity. (Almost all genera 
contain just one species.) What if people want to give a branch-based 
definition to a new name of that kind? As Art. 11 says (most clearly 
spelled out in Rec. 11.4A), they shouldn't be forced to name a pro-forma 
species for their single new specimen.

I suggest adding "Whenever possible," in front of the proposed new 
sentence. Alternatively, turn that sentence into a Recommendation.

Glossary entry for "taxon": The first sentence sounds very good at 
first, but it would mean that different codes consider different groups 
to be taxa. "Paraphyletic taxon" would then become a contradiction in 
terms under the PhyloCode. But isn't this entry redundant with Art. 1 
anyway?... Oh. I just noticed that the two sentences of Art. 1 
contradict each other on this. The first implies that only clades are 
taxa, the second states that clades and species are taxa. I'll try to 
come up with a solution later.
    More information about the CPN mailing list
    View Site in Mobile | Classic
    Share by: