Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: rankless nomenclature
cantino at OHIOU.EDU
Fri Oct 13 14:51:27 CDT 2000
Doug Yanega asked:
>Let's assume for a moment that both codes are up and running, side by side.
>A PhyloCode taxonomist publishes a paper in which new names are created. IS
>IT POSSIBLE that these new names can, on occasion, be valid under the
>PhyloCode and NOT valid under the ICZN? If there is any way this can
>happen, what then is to prevent someone else from taking those same names
>and taxon groupings and publishing them again in a manner compliant with
>ICZN rules, thereby establishing them as if he/she were the original
>author? (We recently saw a mess like this with the electronic publication
>of some new wood roach species; when the authors realized no one accepted
>their names, they published the exact same work in a journal so the names
>are now valid. If they'd worked on butterflies, it wouldn't have been
>surprising if someone plagiarized them and beaten them to it - and it would
>have been allowed by the ICZN rules, though it certainly would've required
> Along with this, if Linnaean taxonomists adapt an original
>PhyloCode name and alter its meaning in a way the PhyloCode would not
>permit, can't this lead to confusion in the future, or do PhyloCoders
>ignore actions taken by ICZNers that aren't consistent with their rules?
> In essence, won't having two codes with different rules lead to
>peculiar loopholes and conflicts in certain cases where they intersect?
>Basically I'm just wondering about how many and how serious the points of
>friction may be. How thoroughly have people analyzed this aspect of things?
The PhyloCode and ICZN are entirely separate codes with different
rules. A name that is accepted under the PhyloCode (= valid sensu
ICZN; = correct sensu ICBN) does not necessarily have any status
under the corresponding rank-based code, and vice versa. For
example, a name that is valid under the ICZN but does not have a
published phylogenetic definition cannot be an accepted name under
the PhyloCode. A name that is accepted under the PhyloCode but was
published without any indication of its rank cannot be a correct name
under the ICBN.
There is nothing to prevent someone from taking a PhyloCode name and
republishing it so that it is a valid name for the same grouping
under the ICZN, but is this a serious problem? There would be a
different author associated with the name under the two codes, but it
would apply to the same group. The worst that would happen is that
the person who first published it would be annoyed.
Your second scenario would result in the same name being used under
two different codes for taxa that differ in membership, which could
be confusing. However, comparable situations exist right now without
causing major problems. Under the current system, two groups that
bear the same name may have nonoverlapping memberships (e.g., when a
genus name is used under both the ICBN and ICZN), and two groups that
bear the same name may have partially overlapping memberships (e.g.,
when a taxon name under the ICBN or ICZN is applied to a paraphyletic
group by some authors and to a monophyletic group by others;
Apocynaceae is a botanical example).
The PhyloCode includes a recommendation that should help mitigate
possible confusion, which I will copy here:
Recommendation 6.1B. In order to indicate which names are established
under this code and therefore have explicit phylogenetic definitions
(and whose endings are not reflective of rank), it may be desirable to
distinguish these names from supraspecific names governed by
preexisting codes, particularly when both are used in the same
Example 1: The letter "P" (bracketed or in superscript) might be used
to designate names governed by the PhyloCode, and the letter "L" to
designate names governed by the preexisting Linnaean codes. Using
this convention, the name "Ajugoideae[L]" would apply to a plant
subfamily which may or may not be a clade, whereas "Teucrioideae[P]"
would apply to a clade which may or may not be a subfamily.
Example 2: If the name Teucrioideae applied to both a clade
(PhyloCode) and a subfamily (ICBN), they could be distinguished as
Clade Teucrioideae versus Subfamily Teucrioideae.
I agree with you that not everyone follows recommendations, but many
authors will do so voluntarily and many editors and reviewers will
insist that the recommendations be followed. I do not think that the
kind of confusion you are concerned about will be frequent or serious.
This will be my last posting today. I learned yesterday (to my
chagrin) that taxacom imposes a four-messages-per-day limit on
members. On the bright side, this limit will force me to turn my
e-mail off and get some work done this afternoon.
Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Athens, OH 45701-2979
Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130
e-mail: cantino at ohio.edu
More information about the Taxacom