[tdwg-content] DwC review: comments
WEITZMAN at si.edu
Sat Aug 8 20:38:03 CEST 2009
I think that the appropriate thing to do is for someone to propose a standard for phylogenetic nomenclature that we can all put into our various standards that use names (nearly all of the other standards). That way those with expertise in the phylocode are helping us include the things we need to include. I know that would help with the literature standard that I am working on.
Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
Botanical and Biodiversity Informatics Research
National Museum of Natural History
weitzman at si.edu
From: tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [tdwg-content-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Nico Cellinese [ncellinese at flmnh.ufl.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 1:09 PM
To: tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: [tdwg-content] DwC review: comments
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?
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.
tdwg-content mailing list
tdwg-content at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-content