[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

[Kevin Padian]

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 synonyms must not be published before the companion volume (we could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 it declares the companion volume unpublished by definition: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