Fwd: Re: Fwd: PhyloCode names

[Philip Cantino]

Tom, Rich, and others,

I have two objections to mandating a standard prefix or suffix for
PhyloCode names, which is quite different from adding a mandatory
symbol.  One of them Rich touched on at the end of his message:

>Admittedly, some names might end up being awkward to pronounce,
>

If PhyloCode names are automatically more difficult to pronounce than
their counterparts under the IC_N codes, it will make it that less
likely that people will use them.  While some participants in this
discusion might be quite happy with this outcome, it is obviously not
in the best interest of PhyloCode proponents.  Adding a symbol to
names, the approach I have favored, does not have this disadvantage,
because no one would try to pronounce the symbol.

Second, and more fundamentally, adding a prefix or suffix changes the
name.  The (currently incorrect) criticism that the PhyloCode would
change many familiar names would then be valid.  The ICBN name of the
composite clade is Asteraceae.  Why shouldn't this same name be used
for the exact same group under the PhyloCode?  This is not an
isolated problem.  There are a great many current names that apply
unambiguously to clades under the existing codes; I would not want to
change all of those names under the PhyloCode.

Phil


Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979
U.S.A.

Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130
e-mail: cantino at ohio.edu