Message 2001-02-0050: Re: codes

Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:33:05 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - codes]
[Next by date - Fwd: codes]
[Previous by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - Re: criticism rising]

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:33:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>
Subject: Re: codes

At 04:52 PM 2/9/01 -0600, David Hillis wrote:
>1. ALL clades would be defined phylogenetically. Thus, we would know what
>was meant by the use of a certain name, and be assured that the group was
>actually a real historical group in the tree of Life. Right now, we have no
>way of determining if a given name applies to a real group, and 100
>systematists could use that name in at least 100 different ways, since that
>is a subjective decision.
        Sadly, the inclusion of provisions for qualifying clauses in the
Code falsifies this statement. However, since qualifying clauses may provide
for more consistant usage between nomenclatural systems, this may be a
sacrifice we can live with.

        Note that I here reveal my personal preferance for "replacement"
over "parallel use." More on that later...

     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
  "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi


Feedback to <> is welcome!