[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:29:02 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
> So talk of seeing how to specify species using PhyloCode are not > strictly a part of PhyloCode? Yes (at least so far). > In any event with all the various definitions of species, for > PhyloCode would the following do? Good luck trying to convince all biologists of one species concept... > Species:If sexually produced they are groups of actually or > potentially interbreeding natural populations A very good concept as long as we strictly stay in the present. It's= =20 almost entirely useless for fossils. Even for extant species it often= =20 requires a lot of data that are simply not known. > but if asexually produced they pass down their own forms with both > type of groups members diverging from one another towards separate > species if not prevented from doing so. I don't understand what you mean. --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++