[CPN] Can we implement the PhyloCode immediately?

[David Marjanovic]

> 3, once points 1 and 2 above  have been settled, we should go ahead
 > and publish and implement the PhyloCode, in the context of David's
 > proposal (with a list of names "reserved" for the Companion Volume,
 > at least until its publication, because we cannot be sure that all
 > submissions will eventually be accepted).

Names and definitions, that is, so that people can't scoop the companion 
volume by publishing homodefinitional synonyms and so that they're 
deterred from publishing what will likely end up as heterodefinitional 
synonyms.

In the controversial case of Amphibia (the one I know about), both 
proposed definitions should be on the list.

> I think that the only drawback  for UC Press is a slight increase in
 > distribution fees (two shipments instead of one). But there are
 > advantages to modularity; some colleagues may want one or the other,
 > but not both, of the publications.

In particular, the Code is so short that few people will even want it on 
paper; it is very easily and very quickly accessible on the website. The 
companion volume, in contrast, will be much larger; although electronic 
versions have the advantage of being searchable, many people will 
nonetheless find it easier to have a book standing next to their desk 
for frequent reference than having to load and plow through a huge PDF 
file all the time.* So, I think a lot more people will buy the companion 
volume than the Code; I expect the Code to go mostly to institutional 
libraries.

* Making the chapters of the companion volume available as separate PDFs 
might change this, though. Few people will need all chapters.