[Previous by date - Fw: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:51:02 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: yisraelasper@comcast.net
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode
> Date: Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:54 PM > From: "Michel Laurin" <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr> >=20 >> I think there should be a rule for PhyloCode set that whenever a >> would be PhyloCode definition for a word would otherwise differ >> from a definition already accepted even from PhyloCode, that a new >> term be made instead, with the otherwise old name being declared >> from the point of view of PhyloCode as describing a nonexistent >> category. >=20 > We have discussed this extensively and the consensus is that we wan= t > to be able to reuse old names, such as Reptilia, Dinosauria and > Osteichthys, even though they traditionally referred to paraphyleti= c > taxa. It would be very helpful if there were a a FAQ page on the phylocode.org site, explaining how such decisions were arrived at. I am not asking for it all to be rehashed again now, but I'm sure I'm not the only latecomer who finds this decision surprising. Also, life would be so much better if the index terms at =09http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/indx.html were link anchors! _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________= ___ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> http://www.miketaylor.org= .uk )_v__/\ "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours" =09 -- Richard Bach, "Illusions" -- Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio =09http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/