[Previous by date - Re: [Re: Subscribers]]
[Next by date - Re: Subscribers]
[Previous by subject - Subscribers]
[Next by subject - Subspecies]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 13:54:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: kinman@usa.net
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Subscribers
I believe that we need to decrease the numbers of "formal" taxa, not=
increase them. That is why I only recognized the basic higher ranks (kin=
gdom,
phylum, class, order, family) with endings that render them more distinct=
ive.
When the traditional codes got into the business of formal intermedi=
ate
taxa, it opened a Pandora's box, and PhyloCode will only exacerbate the
problem of too many "formal" names. A less formal system of coding, info=
rmal
taxon names, and/or cladograms makes more sense to me for showing the pro=
posed
relationships.
Lophotrochozoa is a perfect example of a group which should NOT be
formally recognized. It is almost certainly a broadly paraphyletic group=
that
gave rise to the holophyletic Ecdysozoa grouping of phyla. They are simp=
ly
non-ecdysozoan bilateria, and the notion that they are the sister group t=
o
ecdysozoans is going to be very difficult to dispel.
These and other formal intermediate rank names (Coelomata, Protostomi=
a,
Uniramia, etc.) do more harm than good in determining how the various
invertebrates are related to one another. In my opinion, PhyloCode will =
only
accelerate the generation of such problems. =
-----Ken Kinman
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=
1