[Previous by date - References for Papers Using PhyloCode]
[Next by date - Fwd: References for Papers Using PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:05:00 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
--- Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu> wrote: > >But why would you need _Panangiospermae_ as a taxon when _Pan-Angiospermae_ > >would already exist? > > Pan-Angiospermae is an autonym. Shouldn't major panstem clades als= o > have a formal name? Michael Keesey wrote: "the total clade of _Angiospermae_ (assuming it is made a crown clade= ) has never been given a name, to my knowledge, so there is no need to set = up a clade synonymous with the autonym." There are competing names, e.g. the typified Magnoliophyta. Could the existing typified names be used for one class of clade providing that= the name is not currently being applied to a polyphyletic group? Louis Chinnery University of the West Indies Barbados