PhyloCode prefix/suffix?

[Richard Pyle]

> >Is there any mileage in a non-pronounced symbol, for which there must
> >be several candidates from the keyboard: '|' (bar), '#' '&', slashes,
> >angle-brackets, etc.? For computer searching/sorting the symbol could
> >be easily applied to either end (or macroed from one end to the other
> >without disturbing the name itself), allowing phylonames to be
> >integrated into a sorted list or to be separated into a separate
> >list, as desired. In speech there should be little confusion from the
> >context, or it could be verbalized as Phylo-* or whatever (or heaven
> >forbid a Victor Borge phoenetic punctation sound .....).
> >
>
> This is exactly the approach that I favor.  The following passage is
> copied from my October 22 posting:
>
> My own preferred approach would have been to require a standard
> symbol at the beginning or end of PhyloCode names--for example a
> slash at the beginning of the name, as used by David Baum and
> coworkers.  Thus, /Lamiaceae would be a clade name governed by the
> PhyloCode, whereas Lamiaceae would be a family name governed by the
> ICBN.  In many cases, the name would refer to the same set of species
> under both codes, but in some cases it would not.  For example, not
> all circumscriptions of Lamiaceae under the current system are
> monophyletic.

My last post on this "suffix" issue was written yesterday (before the
additional posts), and I had missed Phil's Oct 22 posting, quoted above. I
agree with both Phil and Sean here, that the path to salvation might be in
the form of a mandatory non-pronounced symbol.  As I outlined in my earlier
post, the issue is about reducing ambiguity about whether a particular use
of a name falls within, or without, the "PhyloZone".  I think most people
justifiably feel the optional "P" vs. "L" qualifiers don't cut it, because
they're not an integral component of the name, and therefore won't always be
faithfully transcribed.

Thomas Lammers wrote:
> I think it's a good one -- though aren't you worried about being confused
> with a website?  Seriously, I could live with an initial slash.
>
>  : - )

Smiley notwithstanding, I think there really is a point worth considering
seriously here.  If a symbol is the way to go, some real thought needs to be
put into what that symbol is - especially from an informatics perspective.
I like the "!" alternative, but that also has a special meaning in computer
programming.  Also, as Curtis mentioned, some consideration should be given
to a symbol easily rendered in ASCII (ruling out my earlier suggestion of a
subscript). However, I still tend to prefer a suffix, rather than a prefix,
for the reason I mentioned before, and also for the reasons mentioned by Cam
Webb.

Back to Phil's post:
> I have pushed for this sort of solution to the problem
> that Tom and Finn point out, but the majority of the PhyloCode
> advisory group disagreed.  Recommendation 6.1B was a compromise.

It seems that some of the strongest opponents of PhyloCode would have
reduced objections if the "PhyloZone" boundary was unambiguously defined in
all cases, and a good way to achieve this would be through the use of a
"permanent", "hardwired" qualifier of sorts that is always transcribed with
the name. Perhaps the PhyloCode advisory group might reconsider, in the
interest of gaining wider acceptance among the taxonomic community as a
whole?

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle
Ichthyology, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
"The views expressed are the author's, and not necessarily those of Bishop
Museum."