[CPN] Article 21

[David Marjanovic]

I'm fine with most of the proposal; much of it is identical to my 
proposal from May 12th (yes, it's been a long time), and some of it is 
probably better (e. g. I proposed to work Note 21.1.1 into Art. 21.1, 
the new proposal just deletes it, and I agree with the reason stated there).

However...

First, the big one: the proposal still talks about "infraspecific names" 
without taking into account that, once the PhyloCode is implemented, 
there may be two kinds of such names: rank-based ones, and 
PhyloCode-governed ones that have either been assigned subspecies rank 
or that happen to designate a clade that lies within a species. Only the 
former are intended, but both are implied. For this reason (though I 
failed to make _that_ clear), I proposed a new Note:

"Note 21.1.1. In any particular classification, a species or 
infraspecific taxon may be identical in content to a clade, and a clade 
may be assigned the rank of species or that of an infraspecific 
category. In such cases, intercode synonymy may occur between this code 
and a rank-based one, because names governed by this code have a 
different form from specific or infraspecific names governed by the 
ICNP, ICN or ICZN. However, such redundancy is likely to be limited: 
assigning a rank to a clade name is not a nomenclatural act under this 
code, and the rank-based codes do not recognize the adoption of any 
species concept as a nomenclatural act -- under most species concepts, 
species need not be clades. This situation is similar to monospecific 
genera under the rank-based codes (cases where a genus and its type 
species are identical in content in a particular classification)."

In this, "a species or infraspecific taxon" in the first sentence should 
rather be "a taxon with a rank-based name at species or infraspecific 
rank", and of course I'd be fine with, say, ending the first sentence 
with "a clade may be assigned species or infraspecific rank".

Digging this up also reminded me that it's not called ICBN anymore. It's 
now "International Code of Nomenclature of algae, plants and fungi", 
assuming the 2012 Code has been printed at last. I'll look that up 
tomorrow, and I'll look up if the change from "Bacteria" to 
"Prokaryotes" is now official as well.

The new Art. 21.3 comes with a note in the proposal: "[The last sentence 
refers to ICZN Art. 11.4.]" Then why not just say so: "For names 
governed by the ICZN, this practice must be followed throughout the 
publication that establishes the name (ICZN Art. 11.4)."

The first sentence of the new Art. 21.4 contains the phrase "may be 
treated as the name of the species under this code, termed a species 
uninomen". Given that this code doesn't govern species names, do we 
really want to say there is such a thing as "the name of the species 
under this code"? How about "may be treated as the _de facto_ name of 
the species, termed a species uninomen"?

Example 1 to Note 21.4B.1 lacks the year at the first opportunity, right 
after the Note says the year is commonly cited under the ICZN.

I'll interpret Note 21A.1 as allowing any agreement; thus, I'm looking 
forward to *Discodorididae sandiegenses*! That should make some heads 
explode! ;-)

Finally, I proposed a new recommendation to deal with a pet peeve of 
mine. It's not really on topic, and I should propose it to the 
committees that make the rank-based codes (where of course I have much 
less influence), but I think it should receive consideration anyway:

"When establishing a new species name under the appropriate rank-based 
code, the protologue should state which species concept the authors have 
in mind, and it should include a description of the evidence indicating 
that the new species fulfills that concept, even though the rank-based 
codes have no such requirements or recommendations. Names for 
infraspecific taxa should be handled analogously."

If people started adhering to this, it would force people to think about 
species instead of taking them for granted, counting them as a measure 
of biodiversity, referring new specimens to species for implied reasons 
that other authors wouldn't accept if they were explicit, and so on...