[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

[Cantino, Philip]

I am responding to David's initial message, but I have also read the responses from Michel and Kevin P.

There are two elements in David's suggestion: 1) Implement the Code before completion of the Companion Volume, but mandate in the Code that names published in the Companion Volume have priority over all other names, regardless when published.  2) Implement the Code as soon as the current round of amendments (meaning, I assume, those related to the CBM species proposal) is finished.

The first element is a major change, the implications of which should be considered carefully by the CPN and ISPN before votes are taken.  Please do not let your frustration with the slow pace of the companion volume spur an impulsive decision that we may regret later.  This said, I will also say that I do not necessarily oppose the idea.

I have greater concerns about the second element of David's proposal--the specifics of when the code would be implemented if the CPN and ISPN approve.  Kevin and I have quite a few additional changes we would like to make in the code, some of which we have already incorporated into our editing of companion volume entries because we are reasonably sure that they will be approved by the CPN.  Although we think they will be uncontroversial, some of them are also important.  We have been holding off sending these proposals to the CPN until after the seemingly interminable and intermittent discussion of the species proposal ends.  I am strongly opposed to implementing the PhyloCode before the CPN considers and votes on the modifications that Kevin and I have been waiting for months to send to the committee.  

When you talk of implementing the code, do you also mean publishing it in hard copy?  If so, the CPN can't set a definite date because this will be in the hands of the University of California Press, which has the contract to publish it.  The most the CPN could do is set a target date for submission of the final product to UC Press.  On the other hand, if the CPN and ISPN vote to implement it before it is published in hard copy, we need to make sure that the UC Press is still interested in publishing the code and the companion volume.

Phil



On Sep 9, 2012, at 11:53 AM, David Marjanovic wrote:

> 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