Message 2000-09-0004: Re: Nathan Wilson's question

Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:04:06 -0500 (CDT)

[Previous by date - Re: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - Re: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by subject - Re: New Dinosauricon Taxon Pages: _Therizinosauria_]

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:04:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: Philip Cantino <>
Subject: Re: Nathan Wilson's question


In regards to the attribution of species to non-nested clades, I can't see a
reason why a species could not belong to non-nested clades, indeed, I
believe it kind of has to by definition, being a descendant of the common 
ancestor of both clades. If we wish to include them under only some of the
non-nested clades, our nomenclature becomes a classification rather an
observation of natural phenomena.
	I am not sure, but I believe that, if one accepts that all
organisms belong to a species, then hybrids must always be members of
hybrid species. Therefore, this is an issue which probably should be
	In terms of nomenclatural recognition, although a hybrid species
would be a recognizable member of a number partially exclusive entities,
its *relative* relationships vis-a-vis other members of those entities
would be less certain. Although every species shares a common ancestor
with every other species, such "reticulate speciation" would create
situations in which there might be two (or more) candidates for the "most
recent" common ancestor.
	Perhaps, in recognition of this, hybrid species (and, for those of
you who would insist, individuals) should not be allowed as specifiers in
the definitions of clade taxon names.



Feedback to <> is welcome!