Message 2000-10-0015: RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question

Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:47:12 -0400

[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by subject - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:47:12 -0400
From: "Moore, Gerry" <>
To: 'Philip Cantino' <>
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question

PC: I agree with your [Kevin's] analysis but others may not.  If a careful
thinker with a thorough understanding of nomenclature (e.g., Gerry) can
interpret a hybrid species as belonging partially to one clade and partially
to another non-nested one, rather than fully to both clades, isn't it likely
that other users of the PhyloCode will also interpret the situation this way
in the absence of a clarification
within the code?  

Thanks, Phil.  I still maintain that species of hybrid origin pose potential
problems when used as specifiers.  These problems have to do with 1)
potential circumscriptional instability, especially when the species was
used as a specifier prior to the discovery that it has a hybrid origin; and
2) potential interpretation problems. I will prepare some more examples that
I think may better drive home some of my concerns (I believe, as Nathan Hale
pointed out in an earlier post, things get trickier when more than one of
the specifiers is of hybrid origin). However, I will not get to this until
next week.

To me this issue is not about trying to prove one interpretation as
"incorrect" and the perceived problems therefore "imagined" (terms used in
Kevin's e-mails) but rather whether the potential for dual interpretations
exists (even if some insist that one of the interpretations is "incorrect").
Early on (see my 02 Oct post and Phil's 12 Oct. ca. 3:41 PM post) I
recognized the other interpretation outlined by Kevin yesterday. I drew the
cladogram the way I did (rather than the way Kevin did) simply for
convenience' sake (I was in a hurry).  Obviously, everyone knows that in
reality the hybrid origin species 3 would be one entity (I still maintain
that there is a risk of dual interpretation even when working with Kevin's
figure and I will address that in a later post).  

With regards to the other interpretation I suggested, I am not the only one
imagining things since Michel Laurin (29 Sep. post) suggested that the other
"obvious solution" (besides the redefinition solution) was that "the
definition would now be more inclusive because it would include both clades
from which the hybrid species is derived." M. Laurin (same post) and Wagner
(27 Sep. post) also suggested that it might not be a good idea to use
species of hybrid origin as specifiers.




Feedback to <> is welcome!