[CPN] Article 21

• Previous message: [CPN] Article 21
• Next message: [CPN] Article 21
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

I am also fine with the proposal, and with much of what David proposes 
to change, with one exception: I don't know if it is a good idea to 
introduce recommendations about species names (i.e. requesting that 
authors state which species concept they use) in a code like ours that 
does not rule species names. Seems incoherent. The rank-based codes 
would be the proper place to introduce these changes (but I realize that 
they probably won't do that, not anytime soon anyway).

Cheers,

Michel

On 17/03/13 00:04, David Marjanovic wrote:
> I'm fine with most of the proposal; much of it is identical to my 
> proposal from May 12th (yes, it's been a long time), and some of it is 
> probably better (e. g. I proposed to work Note 21.1.1 into Art. 21.1, 
> the new proposal just deletes it, and I agree with the reason stated there). 
>  
> However... 
>  
> First, the big one: the proposal still talks about "infraspecific names" 
> without taking into account that, once the PhyloCode is implemented, 
> there may be two kinds of such names: rank-based ones, and 
> PhyloCode-governed ones that have either been assigned subspecies rank 
> or that happen to designate a clade that lies within a species. Only the 
> former are intended, but both are implied. For this reason (though I 
> failed to make _that_ clear), I proposed a new Note: 
>  
> "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)." 
>  
> In this, "a species or infraspecific taxon" in the first sentence should 
> rather be "a taxon with a rank-based name at species or infraspecific 
> rank", and of course I'd be fine with, say, ending the first sentence 
> with "a clade may be assigned species or infraspecific rank". 
>  
> Digging this up also reminded me that it's not called ICBN anymore. It's 
> now "International Code of Nomenclature of algae, plants and fungi", 
> assuming the 2012 Code has been printed at last. I'll look that up 
> tomorrow, and I'll look up if the change from "Bacteria" to 
> "Prokaryotes" is now official as well. 
>  
> The new Art. 21.3 comes with a note in the proposal: "[The last sentence 
> refers to ICZN Art. 11.4.]" Then why not just say so: "For names 
> governed by the ICZN, this practice must be followed throughout the 
> publication that establishes the name (ICZN Art. 11.4)." 
>  
> The first sentence of the new Art. 21.4 contains the phrase "may be 
> treated as the name of the species under this code, termed a species 
> uninomen". Given that this code doesn't govern species names, do we 
> really want to say there is such a thing as "the name of the species 
> under this code"? How about "may be treated as the _de facto_ name of 
> the species, termed a species uninomen"? 
>  
> Example 1 to Note 21.4B.1 lacks the year at the first opportunity, right 
> after the Note says the year is commonly cited under the ICZN. 
>  
> I'll interpret Note 21A.1 as allowing any agreement; thus, I'm looking 
> forward to *Discodorididae sandiegenses*! That should make some heads 
> explode! ;-) 
>  
> Finally, I proposed a new recommendation to deal with a pet peeve of 
> mine. It's not really on topic, and I should propose it to the 
> committees that make the rank-based codes (where of course I have much 
> less influence), but I think it should receive consideration anyway: 
>  
> "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." 
>  
> If people started adhering to this, it would force people to think about 
> species instead of taking them for granted, counting them as a measure 
> of biodiversity, referring new specimens to species for implied reasons 
> that other authors wouldn't accept if they were explicit, and so on... 
> 
 
> CPN mailing list 
>  CPN at listserv.ohio.edu 
 
>  http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn 
 
>  
-- 
Michel Laurin
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie	
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE http://www2.mnhn.fr/hdt203/info/laurin.php 

• Previous message: [CPN] Article 21
• Next message: [CPN] Article 21
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]