[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Plant clade names was PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: Homonyms Between Preexisting Codes]
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Mailing List - PhyloCode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
--- Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu> wrote: > >Michael Keesey wrote: > > > >"the total clade of _Angiospermae_ (assuming it is made a crown cl= ade) has > >never been given a name, to my knowledge, so there is no need to s= et up a > >clade synonymous with the autonym." >=20 > Louis Chinnery asked: >=20 > >There are competing names, e.g. the typified Magnoliophyta. Could = the > >existing typified names be used for one class of clade providing t= hat the > >name is not currently being applied to a polyphyletic group? >=20 > Magnoliophyta could be defined as applying to the panstem, but this= =20 > would likely confuse people because Magnoliophyta and Angiospermae= =20 > are widely understood by botanists to be alternative names for the= =20 > same clade. The same applies to other pairs of typified versus= =20 > untypified names (e.g., Equisetophyta and Sphenophyta, Pinophyta an= d=20 > Coniferophyta, Lamiaceae and Labiatae). This isn't my domain, as such, but couldn't the typified names, named= after genera, be crowns, while the untypified names, which seem to all be n= amed after characters, be apomorphy-based? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =09=09 _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com