[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:28:51 -0500 (EST)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, T. Mike Keesey wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Philip Cantino wrote:
>
> > The most time-consuming job that remains to be done before the
> > PhyloCode is implemented is preparation of the companion volume with
> > phylogenetic definitions of widely used names.
>
> Would it be a good idea to start discussion on that matter here? Or might
> that get too specialized?
Okay, regardless of whether it's a good idea, I want to try and start a
discussion on this, starting at the highest levels. What should be the
definitions for these clades?
_Biota_ (apomorphy-based?)
_Eubacteria_ (is this a clade?)
_Archaea_ (is this?)
_Eukaryota_
_Plantae_
_Fungi_
_Animalia_
Have these been defined in the literature anywhere? How should they be
adapted to PhyloCode rules? (e.g., Should our own species be an internal
specifier for _Animalia_?) Should these names be used? What other clades
should be named at the approximate "level" of these ones?
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
BloodySteak <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>