Phylocode

[SKÁLA Zdeněk]

Sorry to reinvent the wheels but I believe that Phylocode &Co. is quite important stuff to really all. Now I hope there exists solution that is fair to all parties.
Situation:
Many cladists probably need to name more clades than traditionally recognized taxa and are then faced with the problems of taxonomic ranks. The convention of phyletic sequencing is often viewed as inconsistent and provisory. On the other side, many taxonomists fear about nomenclature instability when a new Code would be launched.
Solution (??):
Clades can be named by quoting two or more terminal taxa (species) that fix (by a reference to a cladogram) an exact taxon/clade contents and definition. For a cladogram ((((A)B)C)D) there can exist names A/B, A/C, A/D. In the real world there can exist names like Poa alpina/Festuca gigantea or Rhinanthus minor/Melampyrum pratense (perhaps even Rhinanthus/Melampyrum) that will refer to a given cladogram in the same manner like the Phylocode proposes. It will result in (1) rankless nomenclature able to name *any* clade, (2) clear link between the IC*N nomenclature and clade-naming system, (3) no need for a new Code, and (4) clear distinction between the "traditional" and the "phylo" names.
Opinions?
Zdenek Skala