[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:19:28 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)
> Even if it fails, there EXIST > quite 'no-doubt' other fusion organisms, e.g., lichens. It turns out that the > phylogenetic tree is not a strict tree, but a loosely connected digraph > (although almost tree-like, it has loops). > > PhyloCode should reflect that. What is the opinion of other readers of the > list? > > Fusion organisms should fall inside both parent clades. Or we are picky and say "hmm, the fungus of a lichen is a fungus, the "alga" is a chlorophyte, cyanobacterium, whatever, the mitochondria of both are alpha-proteobacteria, the chloroplasts are cyanobacteria, and maybe the cilia and centrosomes are spirochaetes." Of course I think it would be nonsense to name clades of mitochondria, chloroplasts or suchlike, as their topologies must be the same as those of their hosts. BTW, maybe it should not be compulsory to refer every organism that can be put into a clade to a species. Especially among fossils it is usually impossible to determine what species are (because only the morphospecies concept is applicable).