Fwd: PhyloCode names

[Barry Roth]

I agree fully with this.  There should be as few limitations as possible on the formation of names proposed under the PhyloCode.  That practice of phyletic naming should be _at least as_ unfettered as naming under the ICZN and ICBN.

The proposals that phylo names should have some distinctive orthographic badge reminds me of the (long discredited) view that names based on fossils should have an -ites or -lites ending.  In my view, the "phylo" spelling proposal seeks to impose a "second-class citizen" status on phylogenetically defined names, whereas in time it will be seen that it is the names of canonical systematics that need a disclaimer:  they cannot be used and manipulated as though they designate holophyletic units, caveat taxonomer.


Barry Roth

  "Moore, Gerry" <gerrymoore at BBG.ORG> wrote:
I think it is inappropriate to force a single prefix or suffix on all names
used in a single system of nomenclature. If phylogenetic nomenclature were
to be commonly used and it mandated one suffix or prefix for all names, we
would be talking about thousand and thousands of names with the same prefix
or suffix. This would result in such eyesores (and in some cases earsores)
such as Phyloaa and Phylooplismeniopsis (although I do like the idea of a
Phylolinnaea [...]


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.