[Previous by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by date - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Previous by subject - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
[Next by subject - Re: Phylocode and Evolution]
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:15:20 +0100
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Phylocode and Evolution
> I realize it is only terminology. The current definition is "The= =20 > development of a species from its original to present form trough= =20 > hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generati= ons and=20 > Natural Selection." I disagree: - Evolution happens at the population level, so it is meaningless at = best=20 and misleading at worst to mention species. - "From its original to present form" is a misleading restriction. "F= rom any=20 earlier to any later form" would be better. - Who needs to mention generations? - _Natural_ selection is not enough. There's also sexual selection. A= nd then=20 there's genetic drift (which I also forgot to mention). Where did you find that definition? > Using PhyloCode if all you recognize is a clade so than we are stil= l part=20 > of the same species. Species are not clades. Species can be paraphyletic. > We are then for instance labeled reptiles. We _are_ labeled amniotes, yes, of course. A clade is an ancestor plu= s all=20 its descendants.=20