[Taxacom] draft BioCode
neale at bishopmuseum.org
Sat Jan 22 02:32:16 CST 2011
Paul's comments notwithstanding, there is an overall problem with regard to authority of the Code and membership. A maximum number of members (20) is mentioned but no minimum!! I suppose you could theoretically only have 2 members and all provisions of the Code would be fine (i.e., 1 present constituting a quorum)!
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel [dipteryx at freeler.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 10:09 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] draft BioCode
I see that the new 2011 draft-BioCode (to be published
in the February issue of Taxon) is now online at
I have not looked at it all that closely, but it is very
noticeable that there are three new ranks added.
This includes the "prospecies" which is there to continue
the way the zoological Code deals with subspecies.
This "prospecies" replaces "subspecies" for zoological
names and new names ("subspecies" remains only for
names established under the botanical or bacteriological
Codes). This strikes me as at least somewhat at odds
with the basic premise of the BioCode, which is to start
anew, with a clean slate, not encumbered by all the quirks
that history has forced into the existing Codes. Surely,
it would have been a lot simpler to just adopt the
Principle of Coordination for new names at all ranks
below the level of species. This is what the botanists
discussed adopting in the past, generally agreeing
that this would be desirable, but too dangerous and
upsetting to do for existing names, retroactively.
And similar for other principles; it now looks overly
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom