[Previous by date - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]
[Next by date - Two mammal clade alternatives]
[Previous by subject - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]
[Next by subject - Re: Please Read (sorry it is long)]
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:19:21 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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?
> [...]
> 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_.
Natural selection... well... I think I understand what you mean, and it
could work, but natural selection is what has produced the millions of
different species. The reason for priority, as far as I have understood, is
to reduce the number of classifications to something that can still be
overlooked. Does anyone have ideas what else besides priority and committee
decisions could be used for this?
So far the PhyloCode will ensure that the same names can be used for
different phylogenetic hypotheses, usually without problems.
> 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.
Here I can agree much more easily. When I think of crown-group Reptilia...
<gargl> %*)