Message 2004-10-0020: Re: Panstems

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:16:16 -0700 (PDT)

[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:, 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=
rule.  On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have a stan=
affix for names associated with every type of definition (node, branc=
apomoprhy, crown, stem, etc.).>

  I have yet to hear a response to what I would think are valid criti=
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=
but not any other form of clade? If one, why NOT the others? I have s=
NO argument that has argued why we should have a stem affix for a sin=
clade, ignoring the utility of the others. This is not an argument FO=
further affixes, but a curiousity about why it is even trying to be
required for ONE type of clade only.


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)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!


Feedback to <> is welcome!