[CPN] Comments part 1

[David Marjanovic]

First of all my own, written on Oct. 5th and 6th and not updated in the light of other people's comments. It contains a sort of counter-/compromise proposal.

==============================

> I am not sure if we are supposed to open the discussion or wait for the
> publication -- the manuscript is, after all, already in review. However,
> if the former is the case...
>
> Preamble, item 1: I agree with the proposal.
>
> Art. 1.1:
> Current: "The groups of organisms whose names are governed by this code
> are called taxa (singular: taxon). Taxa may be clades or species, but
> only clade names are governed by this code."
> Proposal: "The groups of organisms whose names are governed by this code
> are called taxa (singular: taxon). Only clade names are governed by this
> code."
> Why mention taxa at all, when all taxa governed by the PhyloCode are
> clades? I would like to suggest the following: "This code governs the
> names of clades of organisms." We could then merge this article with
> Art. 2.1 if we think a one-sentence article is too short. :-)
>
> Art. 2.1: I agree with the proposal, though I like Keesey's "ancestral
> set" even better.
>
> Art. 2.2, Note 3.1.1: I agree with the proposal.
>
> Art. 9.4 and 11, and Note 13.2.2: I disagree with the proposal. This is
> because some well-known extant species that were named long ago, like
> *Crocodylus niloticus*, do not have a type specimen at all, and they
> will only be given one if doubts about their monophyly will ever come
> up. I don't see why such species should be disallowed as specifiers. I
> also like the current situation in which a specifier can change when the
> type specimen of the species that is actually meant changes (because a
> lectotype is selected from a series of syntypes, or because a neotype is
> designated -- disclaimer: I have not tried to find out if the ICBN uses
> these terms in the same ways as the ICZN, if at all). If PhyloCode users
> had to select a specimen that belongs to such a species as a specifier,
> this would, in practice, probably amount to de facto selecting a type
> specimen under the rank-based code in question; I don't think that's a
> good thing.
>
> Art. 9.5: I agree with the proposal.
>
> Art. 9.7: Unnamed subclades will likely be indicated, in many cases, by
> lists of included species, so I don't think the proposal would change
> much.
>
> Rec. 9c: I agree with the proposal, though "organisms" would be better
> than "specimens" (a museum specimen can consist of several organisms).
>
> Art. 10.5: I agree with the proposal.
>
> Art. 10.9: This is a tricky one.
> 1) Specific epithets are (usually) not unique, so converting one
> *vulgaris* or *mongoliensis* will prevent all others from being
> converted in that shape.
> 2) Converting an epithet will, in practice, lead to defining the species
> with that name even for users of the rank-based codes. And that amounts
> to imposing one species concept on everyone. I do not like that at all.
> 3) I admit that I have dinosaur privilege. Among Mesozoic and older
> vertebrates, the number of genera with more than one species is
> negligible, so that most LITUs already have a uninominal which already
> looks like a clade name and is already unique (except for intercode
> homonyms like the archosaur and flowering plant *Galtonia*). This is
> because most species concepts are not even applicable, so that species
> are only named at all because the ICZN requires it and because it allows
> authors to honor more colleagues than otherwise. I understand this is
> very different from the situation most neontologists find themselves in.
>
> Art. 13, general proposal: I disagree. This proposal would require
> biologists to learn not just the names of the taxa they work on, but
> also the authors and year of each of these names. On average, that's
> perhaps a fivefold increase of effort (many taxon names have more than
> one author, I know some with 13 and 19). Further, it will increase
> vanity among authors of clade names; clades should be named to make
> talking about them easier, not to make oneself immortal.
>
> Art. 13.1, 13.3 and 13.5, and Note 13.2.3: These proposals almost define
> homonyms out of existence and therefore, again, require that biologists
> learn all relevant authors and years. I do not like that prospect at all
> -- and I am rather unusually good at remembering numbers!
>
> Art. 21: I agree with the idea of removing the implication that there is
> such a thing as a species name under the PhyloCode (which is clearest in
> Art. 21.5 and 21.2). However, Art. 21 contains more than that; therefore
> I do not agree with the proposal to abolish it in its entirety.
> 1) At a minimum, the current Art. 21.4 with Rec. 21.4A and B (and all
> their notes and examples) should be kept, because they recommend how to
> go about naming species without having to take actions incompatible with
> the PhyloCode and without causing confusion when two systems of
> nomenclature are used in the same publication.
> 2) Rec. 21.4C is a different matter; it recommends Kevin de Queiroz's
> species concept. I think it should be replaced by a Recommendation which
> urges authors of species names to state which species concept they have
> in mind and to provide evidence that their new species is in fact a new
> species under that concept -- this touches on the PhyloCode because some
> species concepts (like the one by Baum 2009) require species to be
> clades.
> 3) Completely independently of the proposal, Art. 21.3 should not be an
> Article. It consists of a note (the statement that, because of Art. 3.1,
> the PhyloCode does not govern names at subspecific and lower ranks) and
> a recommendation ("their use to refer to [...] is discouraged"). If
> kept, they should be made a Note and a Recommendation.
> 4) Art. 21.5 and Rec. 21A are pretty much identical. If kept, they
> should be merged into a Recommendation.
>
> Thus, I would like to submit my own proposal for amending Art. 21 in the
> next e-mail (this one is long enough).

...which is the following:

> The entire text of what the amended Art. 21 would look like follows:
>
> ==============================
>
> 21.1. This code does not govern the establishment or precedence of
> species, subspecies or variety[*] names. To be considered available
> (ICZN) or validly published (ICBN, ICNB), a (new or replacement) name
> for a species, subspecies or variety must satisfy the provisions of the
> appropriate rank-based code (e.g., ICNB, ICBN, ICZN). This article
> contains recommendations on how to avoid confusion when performing
> nomenclatural acts concerning species, subspecies or varieties in
> publications that use clade names in ways that conform to this code.
>
> [* Question: is this an exhaustive list? The ICZN and the ICNB recognize
> only the rank of subspecies below that of species; varieties, used in
> botany, are explicitly forbidden in zoology and bacteriology.]
>
> [current Note 21.1.1 deleted]
>
> Note 21.1.1. In any particular classification, a species, subspecies or
> variety may be identical in content to a clade, and a clade may be
> assigned the rank of species. 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 species, subspecies or variety
> names governed by the ICNB, ICBN or ICZN. However, such redundancy is
> likely to be limited: assigning a rank to a clade name governed by this
> code is not a nomenclatural act, 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).
>
> [current Art. 21.2 and 21.3 deleted]
>
> Rec. 21A [currently Art. 21.4 and Rec. 21.4B]. To satisfy the
> requirements of the rank-based codes, a name implicitly or explicitly
> associated with the rank of genus must be used when establishing a new
> or replacement name for a species, subspecies or variety. 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 a generic name, 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
> species 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.]
>
> 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.
>
> [current Art. 21.5 and Rec. 21A deleted]