Message 2004-02-0008: Cladistics and the PhyloCode

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:28:30 -0500

[Previous by date - Fwd: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - on universaliy of Phylocode]
[Previous by subject - Clades Composed of Individuals, not Species]
[Next by subject - Codes]

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:28:30 -0500
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: Cladistics and the PhyloCode

The accuracy of the statements quoted below depends, of course, on what =
one means by "cladists" and "cladistic."  If what one means is "persons =
concerned with clades" and "pertaining to clades or common ancestry =
relationships", then the statements are correct.  The PhyloCode does not, =
however, require a user to adopt any particular position on how clades are =
identified.  Specifically, it does not require the use of parsimony =
methods, which some people consider to be the only "true" cladistic =

>>> David Marjanovic <> - 2/5/04 7:57 AM >>>

It does seem that all supporters of phylogenetic nomenclature are also =
cladists, but there is no inherent reason for why this should be so.

>>> Philip Cantino <> - 2/5/04 7:02 AM >>>

The PhyloCode is designed to name clades.  It is therefore unlikely
to be adopted by anyone who does not agree with cladistic principles.


Feedback to <> is welcome!