[Previous by date - a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - Fwd: a comment on ancestor]
[Previous by subject - Re: [conflict between monophyletic taxonomy and rank-based classification]]
[Next by subject - Re: a comment on ancestors]
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:57:56 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: a comment on ancestor
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_KFikuf4G44eWQJ0VeIKYaQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable It occurs to me that all agree that inclusion of a new object into = previously established classification would request re-running of = cladistic analysis, otherwise it is impossible to decide to which = particular taxon, as it is defined in the Phylocode, that object = belongs. To me, it means that Phylocode pretends to regulate not only = naming but also recognizing taxa: it is explicetly stated in the = preamble and implicetly follows from presumed allocation procedure. Thus = Phylocode becomes ideological instrument to supress all who disagree = with cladistic principles. Not quite. To classify an organism under the Phylocode is the same as = allocating it to a clade, so one has to have an idea of its position in = the tree of life. But how one finds that out -- by means of cladistics = or not -- is in reality not relevant. It does seem that all supporters = of phylogenetic nomenclature are also cladists, but there is no inherent = reason for why this should be so. (Except that cladistics is the only method to find out a phylogeny. What = has been done before was not methodical.) Whatever might be an assessement of the Phylocode_as_ideology, it = occurs to me that more explicit and precize formulation of such terms = definition, recognition, diagnosis, identification, allocation, and = several relevant others (maybe ancestor etc) would be desirable to = provide in the vocabulary. Certainly can't do damage. :-)= --Boundary_(ID_KFikuf4G44eWQJ0VeIKYaQ) Content-type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dkoi8-r"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>It occurs to me that all agree = that=20 inclusion of a new object into previously established classification = would=20 request re-running of cladistic analysis, otherwise it is impossible = to decide=20 to which particular taxon, as it is defined in the Phylocode, that = object=20 belongs. To me, it means that Phylocode pretends to regulate not only = naming=20 but also recognizing taxa: it is explicetly stated in the preamble and = implicetly follows from presumed allocation procedure. Thus Phylocode = becomes=20 ideological instrument to supress all who disagree with cladistic=20 principles.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Arial CYR" size=3D2>Not quite. To classify = an organism=20 under the Phylocode is the same as allocating it to a clade, so one = has to=20 have an idea of its position in the tree of life. But how one finds that = out --=20 by means of cladistics or not -- is in reality not relevant. It does = seem that=20 all supporters of phylogenetic nomenclature are also cladists, but there = is no=20 inherent reason for why this should be so.</FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Arial CYR" size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Arial CYR" size=3D2>(Except that cladistics = is the only=20 <STRONG>method</STRONG> to find out a phylogeny. What has been done = before was=20 not methodical.)</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Arial Cyr" size=3D2>Whatever might be an = assessement of the=20 Phylocode_as_ideology, it occurs to me that more explicit and precize=20 formulation of such terms definition, recognition, diagnosis, = identification,=20 allocation, and several relevant others (maybe ancestor etc) would be=20 desirable to provide in the vocabulary.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Arial CYR" size=3D2>Certainly can't do = damage.=20 :-)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_KFikuf4G44eWQJ0VeIKYaQ)--