Message 2004-02-0026: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor

Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:56:56 -0500

[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - proposal (Paris meeting)]
[Previous by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: apomorphy-based names]

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 09:56:56 -0500
From: de Queiroz Kevin <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: [unknown]
Subject: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor

"Recommendation 9D. In order to clarify the reference of a clade name and
facilitate the referral of species that are not specifiers of that name, the
protologue should include one or more of the following: a statement about
the hypothesized composition of the clade (e.g., a list of included species
or subclades), a reference to the hypothesized phylogeny that provided the
context for the definition, a description or diagnosis, and a list of

>>> "Igor Ya. Pavlinov" <> - 2/11/04 8:29 AM >>>
So, however right you may be about a
new taxonomic phylosophy must imply a new taxonomic language, in order to
make Phylocode novelties less idiosyncratic, they have to be pretty
accurately formulated, keeping in mind that "any system is afraid of
novelties" and the drastically is a novelty the more frightened is the
system (I mean, taxonomic community). 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. 


Feedback to <> is welcome!