Message 2004-06-0012: RE: LITU, and lineage names

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - RE: LITU, and lineage names]
[Next by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - RE: LITU, and lineage names]
[Next by subject - RE: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs]

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: RE: LITU, and lineage names

  If you want to break a phylogeny into lineage segments, then "species"
do not exist, as far as I can tell. They become like any other clade,
divisible only by morphology, or by genetic isolation, or whatever one
chooses to separate them. Then chronospecies can be defined at any point a
similar condition prior to a recognized "species" would have occured. For
every character, this means for dinosaurs alone, there are over 6 times as
many species recognized today. More for birds (thousands upon thousands of
new "species").

  An alternate method would be to settle on a morphological basis, or an
exclusive-genetics basis, and deal with the consequences of "defining"
species formally for the Code. Or, you can give the describer the means by
which to treat his species by the provided criteria for each species. "If
definition A, then do a, then b, then follow with c...." and etc.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. 


Feedback to <> is welcome!