Message 2005-12-0030: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Phylocode <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Cc: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?

David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<<<5. After the nomenclature of a part of the tree has been set in st=
one in
this way, anyone can name newly discovered clades in that part and ca=
n
immediately register them durably.>>>

  I disagree with this on the mere basis that getting anyone to agree=
 on tree
topology is to weight tree matrices for whatever reason, rather than =
actually
agreeing on topology. The influx of new data will always alter positi=
onal
topologies, such as where to place sea spiders in the great Arthropod=
a of life,
which now enjoy a more basal position in the lastest neurological stu=
dy on the
pycnogonids. At which point are we to agree that a topology is to be =
true
_enough_ and names applied, especially using names based on mammalian=
 "orders"
to accept the names' applications?

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


=09=09
__________________________________=20
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!