Message 2001-06-0132: Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)

Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:57:15 +0200

[Previous by date - Please Read (sorry it is long)]
[Next by date - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pickett's paper comments wanted]
[Next by subject - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:57:15 +0200
From: pac <>
Subject: Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)


my choice would be H), definitely. By the way,
could somebody explain me what _good_ is the
priority itself for? Isn't it an "invention" in the 
spirit of XIXth century's patents, copyrights, etc.
overgrowing into the areas where there should be 
no room for them? Or do you think that truth
can be even approximated by 'voting', or 'consensus'?
I would personally prefer to preserve
(=convert) the traditional name _iff_ the
original author based it on apomorphy/ies
acceptable for a clade definition. Otherwise,
do not convert it at all, and rather use a new name.
Cite author, and that's all. Remove the reason(s)
for any 'gold rush', allow multiple parallel
classifications, and natural selection among this memes 
will do the rest. (In fact, multiple classifications do exist now).
There will always be multiplicity of opinions about
the phylogeny, thus multiplicity of (parallel)
classifications in PhyloCode (or any other attempt
to use phylogeny as a ground for classification)
and this is _natural_.

But, maybe, I've totally missed the point.


Peter A. Cejchan
Dept. Paleobiology, Inst. Geology Acad. Sci.,
Rozvojova 135, Prague 6
CZ-16502 Czech Republic

A plea:
Please, consider your support to the Public Library of Science initiative at



Feedback to <> is welcome!