[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
From: cej@cejchan.gli.cas.cz
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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. Right. > > 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 they??? ++pac -- Peter A Cejchan paleobiologist Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ <cej at cejchan dot gli dot cas dot cz>