Fwd: PhyloCode names

[Thomas Lammers]

At 05:01 PM 10/22/00 -0400, you wrote:
>The problem with this approach is that every PhyloCode name would
>therefore necessarily be a new name.  Users of the PhyloCode would
>have to abandon thousands of well known names that are already
>applied to clades (though not explicitly) under the current system,
>and everyone who wants to use both phylogenetic and rank-based
>nomenclature would have to learn two names for every clade.  In my
>mind, this is totally unacceptable.

I think it might be a good thing, a clean break.  Just think how much
easier our lives would be if good ol' Carl L. had had a copy of the current
ICBN in hand when he sat down to write Species Plantarum.  Half the Code is
spent patching up past useages that are no longer according to Hoyle.  A
whole new system of names will eliminate a lot of problematic baggage, I
would think.

Or here's a wild hare-brained (or is it hair-brained?) thought:  use the
preface "Phylo-" for names complying with the
PhyloCode.  Phylocampanulaceae, Phylolamiaceae, Phylobarnadesiinae,
Phylophyllanthus ...   Or maybe as a suffix?  Asteriphylum, Lamiphylum,
Lobeliphylum ....  Hm.  Not too euphonious ...




Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor and Curator of the Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-7085
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                 -- Anonymous