PhyloCode: The real problem...again
dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Wed Jul 9 21:55:08 CDT 2003
> From: "Dipteryx" <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
> > I suppose that when the next edition of the ICBN is finished (2006) it
is conceivable to present this in a big way as "the Code that incorporates
250 years of development, now is mature, in full bloom and accepted
worldwide" or a little more snazzy as the "the modern Vienna Code of 2006, a
century beyond the Vienna Rules of 1905".
From: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:35 PM
> This is "our" strength. A couple centuries of tried and dependable
> taxonomic nomenclatorial methodology and FUNCTION.
+ + +
It is an axiom that any strength may turn out to be a weakness and
vice-versa. The 250 years of history is not the weakness the
PhyloCode-supporters make it out to be but it is not pure strength either.
The ICBN still has its problems in its functioning.
"Our" strength is rather that we know our "nuts and bolts", even if some of
them have thread we don't like.
"Their" strength is that they had the opportunity to write their Code fresh
and hope to avoid bugs (new, new! NEW!). And indeed their weakness is that
they don't know where bugs will crop up
+ + +
> They may present us as the model-T, but we need to present them as the
Edsel. The Edsel looked great coming off the production line - but what a
> Ron G.
+ + +
Since the Edsel is now a somewhat popular "classic car", it seems likely
that there are more Edsels on the road today than model-T's? Comparisons are
More information about the Taxacom