[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by date - hands off genera?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Re: Rec. 10A and panstem names]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:27:41 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs
> It gave me pause but did not change my opinion of credibility (regardless
of positions taken). I was actually trying hard to be civilized.
Actually, I can understand why Ken Kinman named the system after himself --
his name is short and easy to remember, and it spares him from coining a new
technical term. And, as far as I know, he is currently the only user of his
system :-> ! I couldn't name anything after myself -- just imagine people
trying hard to pronounce the c with accent at the end of my name (between ts
and ch...)...
Okay, serious now: It is true that the Kinman System preserves all
sister group information. However, it is hard work to translate such a
classification into a cladogram. A cladogram is an image, and we think in
images rather than lists. If one has a cladogram, why should one construct a
classification additionally? I think the cladogram is enough, and that's why
I'm on this list.
> Recently it was voiced that perhaps a PhyloCode could be released that did
not address genera and species.
I did that -- just for clarification: I think that the first issue, or, if
absolutely necessary, the first few ones, should not deal with genera &
species, because the genus is the rank that is by far hardest to give up and
is therefore the biggest step -- and needs most time. It also gives us more
time to agree on what the [vertical gene transfer] to actually do with
species. Sooner or later, the PhyloCode will have to give up genera, because
they are no more real than and have the same disadvantages as any other
rank.