Re: PhyloCode in Cladistics

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00048.x
>
>  Pickett, K. M. 2005. The new and improved PhyloCode, now with types,
>    ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First 
> International
>    Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. _Cladistics_ 21(1): [posted online
>    before print, no page numbers] (doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00048.x)

I can't read the article (it isn't for free)... so I can only wonder whether 
Pickett has stayed in the pubs with us for too long. (Was he even there?) 
~:-| -- Well. Ranks are allowed, but not mandatory, in every version of the 
draft PhyloCode I've seen so far; non-holophyletic taxa must still not be 
named; and types... does he mean specimens as specifiers?