[CPN] PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

[David Marjanovic]

I am really sorry that I wasn't able to reply earlier. It turns out that 
items 9 and 10 require more discussion than we've had over them -- and 
now almost everybody has already voted. Here is my ballot:

1) approve
3) approve
4) approve (I actually prefer "taxonomic rank" over "categorical rank" 
because I think the former has a little less potential for confusion, 
but that potential is low anyway)
5) approve
6) approve
8) approve (see 4; and I'm actually unhappy with "scientific name", 
seeing as nomenclature isn't science, but I don't have a better idea!)
9) I disagree with the justification and, somewhat independently, with 
the proposal. The apparent contradiction in the current wording of Note 
11.1.1, pointed out in the justification, actually allows for naming 
clades that overlap with species rather than containing them entirely. 
Under at least some species concepts, this has no problem happening. The 
potential example that comes to mind are the famous teleost fishes from 
somewhere in Central America (I forgot all details) that have a 
phylogenetic tree as follows, where each letter stands for the 
population of one river (or river system or something):

--+--A
   `--+--B
      `--+--C
         `--+--D
            `--E

(In case your e-mail reader removes the leading spaces, this is a Hennig 
comb.)

Now, A and E can interbreed, making them the same species under one of 
the Biological Species Concepts. B, C and D, however, cannot interbreed 
either with each other or with A or E! Under the BSC in question, we are 
thus dealing with a triply paraphyletic species.

Now suppose somebody wants to name the clade (CDE), and suppose it is 
not known that A and E can interbreed, so that everybody agrees that E 
is a distinct species. Further suppose that this species is used as a 
specifier in the definition. What happens when it is discovered that A 
and E can interbreed?

Under the current wording of Note 11.1.1, nothing happens; the type of E 
remains the implicit specifier even if the name of A has priority over 
that of E, so that the definition continues to apply to (CDE).

Under the proposed wording, A becomes part of the specifier. If the 
definition is node-based or apomorphy-based, it suddenly applies to 
(ABCDE) instead of (CDE). If it is branch-based with B or C as an 
external specifier, it self-destructs -- it ceases to apply to any 
clade, and the name is lost (for the time being).

...But all this is only true for people who happen to accept this 
particular species concept. To people who use, say, any Phylogenetic 
Species Concept, the whole synonymization of A and E never happened in 
the first place. Consequently, _different people will use the same name 
for different clades even though they agree on the phylogeny_. To 
prevent _exactly this_ from ever happening is the first and foremost 
purpose of the PhyloCode. We cannot make the application of definitions 
dependent on species concepts. The only way I can see of preventing this 
is to use only specimens as specifiers, explicitly or implicitly.

The use of implicit specifiers, and here we get back to the apparent 
contradiction, looks silly at first (though see below!), but I think 
it's the best option in some (OK, a few) cases -- those where the type 
specimen isn't actually what people have in mind when they use the 
species name that's attached to it, so that eventually the responsible 
commission of the rank-based code in question steps in and declares a 
neotype. The example that comes to mind is the dinosaur *Coelophysis 
bauri*. The original type series (syntypes, IIRC), found and described 
in the mid-late 19th century, are a few isolated incomplete bones; *C. 
bauri* became extremely well known to scientists and the general public 
when a large number of complete skeletons were found at another site and 
stratigraphic level in the early-mid 20th century. Those skeletons, in 
particular the famous plate with AMNH 7223 and 7224, is what people have 
been de facto using as the type when comparing specimens from elsewhere 
to *C. bauri*. A few years ago it turned out that the original types are 
only diagnostic to Coelophysidae or Coelophysoidea or something. 
Normally, *C. bauri* would have become a nomen dubium, and a new name 
would have had to be created for the complete skeletons, massively 
disrupting continuity of usage. Instead, following a petition, the ICZN 
made AMNH 7224 the neotype, and everyone is happy. In such cases, the 
implicit specifier designated by a species name should shift, too.

The same holds for species names that lack types at present: the 
implicit specifiers that they designate should be whatever their 
_future_ type specimens will be.

The justification continues: "Some PhyloCode users who believe the 
species is nothing more than a Linnaean rank may not like this change, 
but it shouldn't matter to them because they don't intend to use species 
as specifiers anyway.  They have the option of explicitly using type 
specimens rather than species as specifiers, in which case the specimen 
is truly the specifier (see proposed change #10 below)." But that's not 
true. Whether species or specimens are the specifiers of a particular 
definition would, under the proposed wording, depend on the definition, 
not on the user! Under the current wording, all specifiers are 
(implicitly or explicitly) specimens.

Implicit specifiers are not new to the PhyloCode. It expressedly allows 
branch-modified and apomorphy-modified node-based definitions; their 
specifiers are all members, known or unknown, of another clade that is 
described by another definition.

10) I would approve if "explicitly" were inserted near the beginning: 
"When a type specimen is explicitly used as a specifier," that should be 
taken as meaning that the authors really want that specimen to be a 
specifier, future neotypes be damned. -- As explained above, I disagree 
with the justification; but that's not actually relevant.

If my line of argumentation is accepted, it might be a good idea to 
write a Note about implicit vs. explicit specifiers to make sure authors 
will understand that both options exist and that the choice is theirs.