[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: In case anyone was wondering]
[Next by date - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Previous by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Apomorphy-based definitions]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:42:25 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Apomorphy-based clades; was Re: Panstems
Quoting David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>: > Well. "Most inclusive clade" doesn't mention an ancestor, but it st= ill > implies one. The question "where does the clade start" doesn't go a= way. The trick is, that is a BIOLOGY question, not a nomenclature question= . What thing to label as the first ancestor. Similarly, the contents of a "conventionally" defined clade is a Biology (systematic) question, no= t a nomenclature question. However, as Dr. de Queiroz pointed out in Paris, this definition stil= l imposes concept of what life "is," that the idea of life is tied to ancestry = and descent. I am comfortable with this, myself. Jon