Message 2005-12-0056: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications

Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:26:44 +0100 (MET)

[Previous by date - PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode Alphabet]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]

Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:26:44 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications

> Under PhyloCode all taxonomic classifications including species can=
> group together members from different clades?

Clades can contain smaller clades, so one clade can consist of severa=
different smaller clades.

Two arguably important semantic issues:

- Phylogenetic nomenclature is about nomenclature, not about=20
classification. We don't classify at all anymore. We try to find the =
of Life (phylogenetics), and then we tie labels to defined places on =
(nomenclature). We don't hack the tree apart so we could fit its part=
into prefabricated boxes (that would be classification) -- we simply =
need that. Nothing stops us from printing the tree with the names on =

- The term "taxonomy" is currently in use for several different thing=
s (as=20
well as for all of them at once). Originally, however, it was invente=
d for=20
"the theory of classifications" (Arthur Pyramus de Candolle, 1812). U=
this definition, phylogenetic nomenclature is the end of taxonomy bec=
it is the end of classification -- just like phylogenetics, confusing=
called "phylogenetic systematics" by its (confused) inventor, actuall=
y was=20
the end of systematics*.

* A similarly confused term that seems to most commonly mean "how to =
species into an existing classification".

Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat


Feedback to <> is welcome!