Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Susan B. Farmer]

>The PhyloCode does not attempt to determine which classification or
>phylogeny is correct.  It deals entirely with the application of
>names.  When homonyms and synonyms exist, the PhyloCode relies on
>priority of publication to select the correct name for a taxon, just
>as the other codes to.  The first name published for a clade has
>precedence over subsequent names for the same clade (synonyms), and
>the first definition published for a name has precedence over
>subsequent definitions for the same name (homonyms).  As under the
>other codes, a governing committee has the authority to conserve
>later names or definitions over earlier ones if a convincing case can
>be made that doing so would be in the interest of nomenclatural
>stability.

Well, just how does the PhyloCode plan to address the problem when
the earliest named clade has a composition that is *nothing* like
the later clade?  Peer review won't stop that from happening.
It happens all the time.  What if the earlier clade
is later "proven" to be incorrect or flawed?  The more I hear about
the PhyloCode, the less fond I become of it.

I'm not even sure a BioCode will work ... the draft that I saw before
IBC was so full of exceptions, it was basically the ICZN and the ICBN
in the same in the same document -- everytime the two codes handled
something differently, one or the other of them was excepted.

Susan
-----
Susan Farmer
sfarmer at goldsword.com
Botany Department, University of Tennessee
http://www.goldsword.com/sfarmer/Trillium