[Previous by date - Re: Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: The starting phase of the PhyloCode and other issues]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Viruses?]
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:11:00 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Vermes
Mike Keesey wrote:
>This relates to a current discussion on the PhyloCode Mailing List. It
>seems like it might be a good idea to advance a Recommendation for not
>converting paraphyletic taxa when there is a pre-existing name for the
>monophyletic group (e.g., don't expand _Amphibia_ when _Tetrapoda_ is
>available). Maybe there should also be one against conversions that
>drastically change membership. Not sure how this should be worded, though
>-- tricky.
If I interpret correctly what Mike is saying, I think both of his
suggestions are already covered by Recommendation 10A. The first
sentence of Rec. 10A ("Clade names should be selected in such a way
as to minimize disruption of current usage") addresses Mike's concern
about conversions that drastically change membership. The rest of
10A recommends the use of a preexisting name for the clade to be
named rather than adopting (with expanded membership) a preexisting
name of a paraphyletic group stemming from the same ancestor as the
clade to be named. I think this is the same thing that Mike is
suggesting.
Phil
Philip D. Cantino
Professor and Chair
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701-2979
U.S.A.
Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126
Fax: (740) 593-1130
e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu