[Previous by date - RE: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Previous by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:55:56 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor
> The prohibition may be implicit but to me it is there nonetheless. It is there, yes. It is impossible to name, define and register paraphyletic taxa under the PhyloCode. But ironically, phylogenetic nomenclature is _better_ suited than Linnaean nomenclature for defining paraphyletic taxa for the purpose of one paper (as T. Mike Keesey has repeatedly pointed out). For example, "egg-laying theropsids", "non-corvid passeriforms"... all these would require major overturns of systematics under Linnaean taxonomy. Clade names with self-destructive definitions, on the other hand, cannot correspond to paraphyletic groups. If *Reptilia* were defined as "everything closer to *Lacerta agilis*, *Crocodylus niloticus* and *Testudo graeca* than (to) *Passer domesticus* and *Sorex araneus*, then it would simply not exist -- there wouldn't be any reptile -- under all mainstream and half-mainstream phylogenies. Under weird phylogenies (e. g if it were the sistergroup of "Haematothermia"), it could exist, would have to be a clade, and could have the same contents as the traditional doubly paraphyletic Reptilia. (In fact, I think *Reptilia* should be defined in such a way, to prevent the huge change in content necessary to conform to its sometimes used crown-group definition -- which includes birds but excludes theropsids, and is almost identical to *Sauropsida*.)