Hello,
I am kind of late with this but I think still in time to drop a couple of comments about nomenclature before the review deadline. I think that phylogenetic nomenclature is not well accounted for. Clade names could be well accommodated right now, however, the types of phylogenetic definitions are not (node-based, branch-based, apomorphy- based and variations). There could be a few options on how to handle these (e.g., with annotations) , but I wanted to make sure that there is a will to take the PhyloCode into consideration. The phylogenetics community is using these names that are now slowly being published. Next year, after the Code will be published, many more names will be formally recognized and used in databases. This issue will have to be faced at some point, so why not right away. Any comments on this? Thanks!
Cheers, Nico
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Nico Cellinese, Ph.D. Assistant Curator, Herbarium & Informatics Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biology
Florida Museum of Natural History University of Florida 354 Dickinson Hall, PO Box 117800 Gainesville, FL 32611-7800, U.S.A. Tel. 352-273-1979 Fax 352-846-1861 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu