[Previous by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:47:12 -0400
From: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor
Igor wrote: > >For instance, I see no causes not to >preserve taxonomic dyagnoses in the PhyloCode, at least in form of >synapomorphy list, without which allocation of a new item to already >established classification will appear a very sophisticated task. This is retained in Recommendation 9D. Although a recommendation rather than a rule, I suspect most people will follow it because they will want their names and definitions to be easily usable. >I know >several persons over here who tried to apply PhyloCode rules in their >practical revisions but finally rejected this practice just because of >unpracticality of these rules. I would be interested to know which rules they found impractical. Phil -- Philip D. Cantino Professor and Associate Chair Department of Environmental and Plant Biology Ohio University Athens, OH 45701-2979 U.S.A. Phone: (740) 593-1128; 593-1126 Fax: (740) 593-1130 e-mail: cantino@ohio.edu