[Previous by date - genus definitions]
[Next by date - Re: genus definitions]
[Previous by subject - Re: finalization of PhyloCode "behind closed doors"]
[Next by subject - Re: genus definitions]
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: genus definitions
(This is in reply to a message that was intended to go to this list.) --- JRW <jrwakefield@convergeadv.com> wrote: > > > In the next version of my website (The Dinosauricon - http://dinosauricon.com), > > I don't want to distinguish between genera and clades. The problem is that very > > few dinosaurian genera have been cladistically defined (the only example I can > > think of is _Archaeopteryx_, IIRC, and that was problematic - more below). > > Does this not beg the question as to how certain fossil dinos ended up in > the same Genera in the first place? If a specific Genera for a group of > species of dinos (who may not even have been contemporaneous in space and > time) was not based on a cladistic analysis, how can one be sure the Genera > is "natural"? I think this is a good example of why Genera, and the other > levels, need to go, IMHO. I agree that the levels need to go -- but the names don't. My post is about using Genus names as clades, not about incorporating actual genera into the PhyloCode. _Tyrannosaurus_, _Homo_, _Drosophila_, _Magnolia_, etc. can continue to exist in PhyloCode, not as genera, but as clades converted from genera. ===== =====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com