[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