Message 2005-12-0045: Re: Phylocode and Evolution

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:15:12 +0000

[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: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:15:12 +0000
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: Phylocode and Evolution

The definition of Evolution I condensed from Webster's Dictionary. Th=
terminology and form isn't my fault.

David Marjanovic <>
> Species are not clades.=20

You're right. I was meaning that we are then to be labeled in earlier=
Yisrael Asper
Pittsburgh PA

> > I realize it is only terminology. The current definition is "The=
> > development of a species from its original to present form trough=
> > hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive genera=
tions and=20
> > Natural Selection."
> I disagree:
> - Evolution happens at the population level, so it is meaningless a=
t best=20
> and misleading at worst to mention species.
> - "From its original to present form" is a misleading restriction. =
"From 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.=
 And 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 st=
ill 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 p=
lus all=20
> its descendants.=20


Feedback to <> is welcome!