[Previous by date - PhyloCode in Cladistics]
[Next by date - Recent modifications of the Code?]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:48:06 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>, DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode in Cladistics
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004= .00048.x > > Pickett, K. M. 2005. The new and improved PhyloCode, now with type= s, > ranks, and even polyphyly: a conference report from the First= =20 > International > Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting. _Cladistics_ 21(1): [posted o= nline > before print, no page numbers] (doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.000= 48.x) I can't read the article (it isn't for free)... so I can only wonder = whether=20 Pickett has stayed in the pubs with us for too long. (Was he even the= re?)=20 ~:-| -- Well. Ranks are allowed, but not mandatory, in every version = of the=20 draft PhyloCode I've seen so far; non-holophyletic taxa must still no= t be=20 named; and types... does he mean specimens as specifiers?=20