Message 2002-01-0016: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)

Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:10:28 +0100

[Previous by date - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by date - Re: remaining jobs before implementation of PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]
[Next by subject - Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)]

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:10:28 +0100
Subject: Re: remaining jobs... (Trivial)

> > 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).

Okay. I suspect many extant species are in fact morphospecies, too. Aren't 

Peter A Cejchan
Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ
<cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>


Feedback to <> is welcome!