[CPN] Discussion to incorporate elements of CMB proposal

[Mike Keesey]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Cantino, Philip <cantino at ohio.edu> wrote:
> Here is a revised definition of "species" that I proposed for the glossary
> in January, incorporating a change that Michel recommended on an earlier
> draft I sent to the CPN:
>
> species.  A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as a kind of
> biological entity that may or may not be different from a clade or simply as
> a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature.  This code does not endorse
> any species concept nor provide rules for defining species names, but it
> uses species names governed by the rank-based codes to refer to taxa that
> are used as specifiers in definitions of clade names.  Article 21 provides
> guidelines for the use of species names governed by the rank-based codes in
> conjunction with clade names governed by this code.

I like this definition. The first sentence is a bit difficult to read,
though. Perhaps: "A taxonomic unit that is variably conceptualized as
a kind of biological entity (which may or may not be different from a
clade) or as a taxon of low rank in traditional nomenclature."

While we're on the subject of updating the code, I note that some of
the other codes have changed their names since the last draft of the
PhyloCode was created. The International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (or the Botanical Code) is now the International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) and the International
Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (or the Bacteriological Code) is now
the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP). These
are trivial updates that should be included in the next draft.

This was published yesterday by the International Committee on Bionomenclature:

David & al. (2012). Biological nomenclature terms for facilitating
communication in the naming of organisms. ZooKeys 192:67–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.192.3347

It's basically an updated version of PhyloCode's Appendix C (itself
based on a BioCode appendix, IIRC). Happy to see it includes the
PhyloCode! I'd say the next draft should probably use it verbatim
(except with the PhyloCode column first, an additional row for
"converted" nomenclatural status, and perhaps any rows where
PhyloCode's entry is "[none]" omitted).
-- 
T. Michael Keesey
http://tmkeesey.net/