[Previous by date - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Next by date - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Previous by subject - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
[Next by subject - Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:46:05 +0200
From: David Marjamovic <David.Marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: The Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>, PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_MoQ409Y4hx5Pho1mpijG4w) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sorry for cross-posting... >>What bothers me more is the unamendable definitions PhyloCode would = introduce=20 (if I understand it correctly). Say, for instance, I have two genera, A = and=20 B, and I determine on the basis of current evidence that they are sister = taxa, so I define each as a stem-based taxon opposed to the other:=20 [...] Under the current system, I can give weird-ass critter C a new generic = name,=20 to reflect its weird-assedness, and represent its proximity to A on a=20 phylogenetic tree. But if Genus A has already been *defined* as all=20 organisms closer to the type of A than to the type of B, and this = definition=20 cannot be amended, then I am *forced* to place C in genus A, and I feel = this=20 goes against the spirit of a genus.<< This is why the PhyloCode considers all ranks, including genus, totally = irrelevant -- simply kill the spirit of a genus :-> . You can put it = into A, but A is no genus, just a clade like all others. HP Chris Brochu = has defined a node Globidonta within the node Crocodylus. >>Basically, I think the flexibility currently present at the genus = level needs=20 to be preserved, so perhaps PhyloCode should only apply to suprageneric = taxa.=20 What, then, is a genus? Well, maybe it can just be defined as the = first=20 part of the binomial.<< There is still no agreement about what should be done with species. = Getting totally rid of the genus rank won't be easy and will lead to = quite some problems -- we're all used to the spirit of a genus, much = more so than those of higher ranks -- unless a good way of how to deal = with species. There are something like 13 suggestions around, and this = state hasn't changed for the last 2 years. Maybe releasing the first version of the PhyloCode without provisions = for species and genera is not such a bad idea? --Boundary_(ID_MoQ409Y4hx5Pho1mpijG4w) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sorry for cross-posting...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>>>What bothers me more is = the=20 unamendable definitions PhyloCode would introduce <BR>(if I understand = it=20 correctly). Say, for instance, I have two genera, A and <BR>B, and = I=20 determine on the basis of current evidence that they are sister = <BR>taxa, so I=20 define each as a stem-based taxon opposed to the other: = <BR>[...]<BR>Under the=20 current system, I can give weird-ass critter C a new generic name, = <BR>to=20 reflect its weird-assedness, and represent its proximity to A on a=20 <BR>phylogenetic tree. But if Genus A has already been *defined* = as all=20 <BR>organisms closer to the type of A than to the type of B, and this = definition=20 <BR>cannot be amended, then I am *forced* to place C in genus A, and I = feel this=20 <BR>goes against the spirit of a genus.<<<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>This is why the = PhyloCode=20 considers all ranks, including genus, totally irrelevant -- simply kill = the=20 spirit of a genus :-> . You can put it into A, but A is no genus, = just a=20 clade like all others. HP Chris Brochu has defined a node Globidonta = within the=20 node <EM>Crocodylus.</EM><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>>>Basically, I think the = flexibility=20 currently present at the genus level needs <BR>to be preserved, so = perhaps=20 PhyloCode should only apply to suprageneric taxa. <BR> What, then, = is a=20 genus? Well, maybe it can just be defined as the first <BR>part of = the=20 binomial.<<<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>There is still no = agreement=20 about what should be done with species. Getting totally rid of the genus = rank=20 won't be easy and will lead to quite some problems -- we're all used to = the=20 spirit of a genus, much more so than those of higher ranks -- unless a = good way=20 of how to deal with species. There are something like 13 suggestions = around, and=20 this state hasn't changed for the last 2 years.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff>Maybe = releasing the first=20 version of the PhyloCode without provisions for species and genera is = not such a=20 bad idea?</FONT></DIV></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_MoQ409Y4hx5Pho1mpijG4w)--