[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]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
> Under PhyloCode all taxonomic classifications including species can= not > group together members from different clades? Clades can contain smaller clades, so one clade can consist of severa= l=20 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 = Tree=20 of Life (phylogenetics), and then we tie labels to defined places on = it=20 (nomenclature). We don't hack the tree apart so we could fit its part= s=20 into prefabricated boxes (that would be classification) -- we simply = don't=20 need that. Nothing stops us from printing the tree with the names on = it. - 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= nder=20 this definition, phylogenetic nomenclature is the end of taxonomy bec= ause=20 it is the end of classification -- just like phylogenetics, confusing= ly=20 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 = enter=20 species into an existing classification". --=20 Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie