[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 = methods. >>> David Marjanovic <email@example.com> - 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 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.