The principle of principles in nomenclature

[Ron at]

Chris Thompson wrote.
 Ask yourself the simple question.  How do I write a computer algorithm or
logical table to implement what is written in the code.  If you do, you
will
see despite all the nice "legal" language, in practical reality the FIRST
step to be take in deciding how to use those "principles," is to determine
usage, to see, for example, whether the criteria of article 23.9.1 are met
and, hence, the whether the exception (reversal of priority) applies.

Ron writes. Next Chris gave several examples of what I would call process.
In each case I agree with the process - they are unilaterally indisputable.
However, they only deal with part of the larger issue and from only one
perspective. The code is a whole - like the human body. If the digestive
system was discussed from the perspective of the mouth, stomach or
intestines each would demonstrate how they were central to the entire
process - and thus the first priority. After these parts were all done
talking the hand would then speak up and let the digestive system know that
it could do nothing if the hand did not first pick up the food and put it
in the mouth. Of course the feet would then tell the truth which is that
none of the parts would get to the dinner table without the feet taking
them there. Followed by the eye which enabled the feet to know where to go,
then the ear which heard "soups on" at which point the mouth would again
jump back in to remind the ear that it issued that call.

The code is a whole. Every layer, every article, every sub point is
essential and at a given point can claim to be The Essential. A sharp mind
with a good vocabulary can come up many examples and bottom lines which are
all just a - which came first the chicken or the egg - a priority vs.
usage, a whatever vs. a whatever. And therein lies the problem - there is
no versus. There is a harmony - one part of the code is not trying to win
or dominate another. Qualifying statements should not be taken as (or put
into the code as) a power struggle - but as cooperative elements to achieve
the harmony.  If any of us with any Code, use it (or author it) from a
versus predisposition then I think we are bound to inevitably misuse it to
suit ourselves rather than science.

Chris wrote. ...the "writers of edition 4" intended to make the
conservation of long-accepted names in their accustomed meaning the first
priority in achieving stability and universality in zoological
nomenclature.

Ron writes. That is another way of saying they wanted to maintain the
epithetic status quo. Well, that is fine only if subsequent code "authors"
follow the same philosophy (this applies to PhyloCode, ICBN or any and all
codes.)  There will never be any stability in any nomenclature until there
is first stability in its underlying code. Thus, there should never be a
5th edition of the ICZN. There should only be periodic addendums to it
addressing such secondary things as electronic publication validation or
major scientific discoveries which dictate a change in process of
classification. Knowing the ego of man, it is his compulsion to change what
is not broke to simply leave his mark on it - or suit his own agenda. When
will the Code's future committees come to see their selves not as a
changers of the Code but maintainers?

Which brings me to my last editorial point.  Over these many decades, a lot
of minds have worked on, a lot of philosophy been applied to, and a lot of
wisdom incorporated into the IC_N codes. Each is a harmonious, tried and
proven set of principles which individually form singular Principle of
Principles. Knowing only the ICZN, it seems to me it has reached that
harmony that now only waits for its users to comply. Yet, knowing all this,
there is waiting in the intellectual and scientific nursery a PhyloCode
ready to in effect go back to square one and reinvent the wheel.  Do we
really want to go through code puberty again?

Ron Gatrelle