rankless nomenclature

[Zdenek Skala]

Zdenek Skala wrote:
>>community. On the other hand, separate Codes could be
>>useful to other communities, too.
Philip Cantino wrote:
>Doesn't this already occur?  For example, the International Code
>of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants was created for a particular
>community of users.
Yes, it occurs - this is exactly the thing I had in mind. Integration of
the existing codes would be far better way to proceed than creating
new ones, IMO.

Zdenek Skala wrote:
> >nested pattern of nomenclature? In that way, taxon "tortuosa"
> >could be included in many higher-rank taxa since the genetic basis
> >of tortuose (plant) growth would be identical. .. etc.
Philip Cantino wrote:
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem terribly
> different from the current situation, where "tortuosa" might be used
> as a form name within many different species.  Granted, its use
> (currently) is based on phenotype rather than genotype, .. etc.
Apologies, I was really unclear here - I had in mind the case when
two taxa, say Populus and Salix would share variety tortuosa, i.e.
taxon, not only name (tortuosa would be "typified" by genes
responsible for tortuose growth) - and this would be allowed for
"higher" taxa, too. I ought to better write that "one taxon could be
included in several mutually exclusive higher taxa (be they rankless
or rankful)". Such taxonomy would become "modular" (one plant
could belong to several "species" or "varieties" at the same time -
Salix nigra [viridiflora-latifolia-tortuosa]) and largely non-nested
likewise the genome. Sorry again to reinvent wheels by this
marginal matter.
Best!
Zdenek

++++++++++++++++++++++
] Zdenek Skala
] e-mail:
] skala at incoma.cz