[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

Mon Sep 10 01:12:35 EDT 2012

Phil, these are very good thoughts.  Let me give my perspective merely as
someone who sees it from the standpoint of UC Press (as a former editorial
board member) and a consumer.  AND of course, I'm only one voice.

To me the principles of the code are independent of any definitions of
specific taxa.  Promulgating the principles and rules is an important
step.  In practical terms I think that examples from many well-defined
taxa would be useful in explaining the code, but it's not necessary to
have umpty-ump examples and a big phylogeny to do this.  Some simple
examples, taken at the Bio 1 level, should be sufficient, and also should
stimulate our colleagues to submit.

There is a website for the Code that is subject to scrutiny by all our
editors.  It is more immediate than the published version of the Code. 
So, I don't think it's necessary to wait for the volume.  If definitions
are accepted for the Code website, that should be enough.  The published
volume simply instantiates what is on the web, and can never be as up to
date.  Its function is to inform the scientific community and publicize
the effort behind the Code.  We are in a digital age.  As Malcolm McKenna
said in a somewhat different context twenty years ago, "it's only paper."

So, I would urge Phil and Kevin deQ and anyone else that if you want to
make changes to the code, do so as soon as possible; that's why we're
here.  I remain committted to having another meeting in person, and I
would be happy to sponsor it at Berkeley, just to get this thing moving
and settled.  I really don't care how the issues come out (despite my
personal views) as long as they are settled.  But let's get the Code
published and handle the examples later.

More important, to me, is disseminating the (perfectly good but
correctible) PhyloCode to users in many fields of the scientific community
so that it can be as useful as possible.  Everything else can follow.

But really, this is just my voice.  We need to hear from others.  Thanks
to everyone for the effort -- kp

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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