Fwd: Re: PhyloCode prefix/suffix?

[Philip Cantino]

Rich Pyle wrote:

>I thought about the "long-term" issues of the PhyloCode qualifier as well.
>The issue being that if, say, a few decades from now, the majority of
>taxonomists have shifted to PhyloCode, and the Linnaean system has fallen
>into disuse, then the qualifier would appear as an archaic hold-over from a
>past era -- a burdensome legacy that has outlived its purpose.  It seems to
>me that, at such time, a revised PhyloCode could take effect that would
>eliminate the requirement for the qualifier, and even, perhaps, discourage
>its use for publications appearing after 1 January 20xx (in much the same
>way that IZ_N codes are periodically ammended with different rules that
>apply to different blocks of historical time).  I doubt this would be a
>difficult transition at the time; but I wager that taxonomists of that era
>who review the "old" literature of the early 2000's will be grateful that
>the distinction existed during the period when both systems overlapped.
>

Although I don't think that the Linnaean system will fall into disuse
in a few decades, I agree that, if the PhyloCode eventually were to
become the sole code of nomenclature, it would be relatively easy
to eliminate the requirement for an identifying symbol on new names
and legislate that it is no longer necessary to include the symbol
when previously published names are cited.  I also think such a
change would be far easier to make if the qualifier is a symbol
(which the eye easily separates from the pronounceable part of the
name) than if it is a prefix or suffix consisting of letters.

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