Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature

[Barry Roth]

I believe that, even with two formal systems in place,
there will still be some workers who will feel
compelled to rationalize the results of phylogenetic
nomenclature in terms of canonical nomenclature.  I
have already experienced this.  In 1996 I published a
rank-free taxonomy for a group of land mollusks.  I
named all the component clades, borrowing the ICZN
practice of drawing a stem from one contained "genus"
and applying various suffixes (hence,
"Helminthoglyptales," "Helminthoglyptotes," etc.,
based on Helminthoglypta).  I stated explicitly that
these names were outside the purview of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature -- they
were not "names of the family-group" nor of the
genus-group.  Only one of my new names used a
"generic" stem that had not previously been used as a
stem in the canonical nomenclature of the group.

Somewhat later a respected systematist pulled me aside
at a meeting to show me a large manuscript of his -- a
compilation of family-group names in the phylum we
both study.  He showed me where he had converted that
new name of mine to "<name>inae" for his list (perhaps
under the provisions of ICZN Art. 11.7.1.3), and
courteously citing me as the author.

I did not object, and thanked him, although perhaps my
bemused smile showed him that this was not what I had
envisioned for the elements of my taxonomy.

Barry Roth

--- Philip Cantino <cantino at OHIOU.EDU> wrote:
>The two systems serve
> different functions.  Some systematists will not
> find the PhyloCode
> useful, and some systematists do not find that the
> current system
> meets their needs.  The two systems can coexist and
> complement each
> other, as Rich Pyle has eloquently argued.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/