<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Kevin, Mike, and all other CPN members,<br>
<br>
I am sympathetic to removing all dependence on other codes from
the PhyloCode but the problem that I see with converting specific
epithets is that we don't want to have the same name referring to a
species under rank-based codes and a clade under the PhyloCode
because as Phil pointed out, there are probably more userds
interested in talking about species than about any other kind of
taxa (i.e. clades). If we alienate all people who deal with species,
we jeopardize acceptance of the PhyloCode. Althought perhaps
adopting Lanham's solution for species names (e.g. <i>sapiens</i>
Linnaeus 1758) might work, if we don't put the genus name in front
of it. The problem is that what we had envisioned initially allowed
this as a clade address, which some readers will misinterpret. But
this proposal might work if we were to require a unique, unambiguous
designator for such names, like an asterisk, or a superscript "c",
or the bracked sign that Dubois advocated (<<i>Homo sapiens</i>
Linnaeus 1758>) or whatever else the CPN decides (e.g. <i>Homo
sapiens</i><sup>c</sup> Linnaeus 1758). That way, we could allow
conversion (I think) of specific epithets, which I know is something
that Brent wants to do. That would also allow us to state that the
PhyloCode recognizes only clade names (with an exception being made
for specific names ruled by other codes, at least until the
corresponding species names have been converted). We might still
want to let people use species as specifiers to avoid obliging them
to convert all specific epithets before providing definitions. Such
an approach would not require any changes to PhyloCode Companion
Volume contributions. Indeed, we don't want to do anything that
would delay further the already much-delayed Companion Volume.<br>
<br>
But a remaining problem, recently pointed out by Phil, is that
we still don't have a good formula to define clade names that would
closely match that of established species names. Or we might have to
invent one, such as "MNHN 1235 and all individuals that belong to
the same evolutionary lineage", and we might define "evolutionary
lineage" more narrowly as a set of inter-breeding individuals, but
then, we run into the well-known problems (actually vs. potentially
capable of inter-breeding (the latter exemplified by terrestrial
forms presently isolated on different continents, after the sea
level changed, for instance)? What to do about partial sterility
barriers?, etc.). Such definitions would differ little from what is
done under the rank-based codes (except perhaps for making more
explicit the species concept used), which is why we decided not to
do it in the first place.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Michel<br>
<br>
On 06/02/12 00:43, Mike Keesey wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFGhNbPJNTuS=kYg=zEXZ0i8c-gp=pyOCPRh7yjkZCHn2rDXrA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Kevin Padian <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kpadian@berkeley.edu"><kpadian@berkeley.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
There has been no discussion of the Cellinese et al. proposal on the CPN
listserv for some time. Perhaps everyone has said his or her piece?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I've been meaning to draft up a longer response, but haven't had time.
So I'll just raise a few points.
The idea that rank should not be a barrier to conversion, is a
sensible one. One might argue that species and clades are different
types of taxa, but genera and clades are also different types, and
conversion is allowed.
To my mind, the real problem here is orthographic, not taxonomic.
Clade names are uninomials, species names are binomials. The proposal
opts to get around this by changing the nature of clade names, so that
the nominal citation is an essential part of them.
I think there are serious problems with this idea. A citation can take
many forms (surnames, surnames + initials, full names, first author +
"& al.", etc.), meaning that a name would not have a single
orthography. It ruins the elegance of a system where one name, with
one spelling, has exactly one meaning.
Besides, the PhyloCode already has a system for handling binomials!
Names of division of genera can be converted using hyphenation:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art10.html#rec10f">http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/art10.html#rec10f</a>
If species names are to be open for conversion, it seems to me it
ought to be consistent with how other binomials are converted (using
hyphenation). And names should have single, consistent spellings.
Another question I'd like to raise: what are the consequences for the
Companion Volume if this proposal is adopted? Would it require another
round of edits to remove the dependency on species?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
UMR 7207
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle
Batiment de Géologie
Case postale 48
43 rue Buffon
F-75231 Paris cedex 05
FRANCE
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669">http://tolweb.org/notes/?note_id=3669</a></pre>
</body>
</html>