[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Panstems
Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) wrote: <Agreed. That's why I voted for adopting the Pan- convention as a ge= neral rule. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have a stan= dard affix for names associated with every type of definition (node, branc= h, apomoprhy, crown, stem, etc.).> I have yet to hear a response to what I would think are valid criti= ques of this ideology. If pan-stems get affixes, why not other clades? Wha= t is the philosophy that would even come close to becoming a mandate for taxonomy in the Phylocode that requires panstems to have Pan- prefixe= s, but not any other form of clade? If one, why NOT the others? I have s= een NO argument that has argued why we should have a stem affix for a sin= gle clade, ignoring the utility of the others. This is not an argument FO= R further affixes, but a curiousity about why it is even trying to be required for ONE type of clade only. Cheers, =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to mak= ing 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 arou= nd us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) =09=09 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail