[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 <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Nathan Wilson's question
All, 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 addressed. 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. Wagner