[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: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:14:13 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
>but if asexually produced they pass down their own forms [they are g= enetic >replicas] with both type of groups [sexually and asexualy pro= duced group's]>members diverging from one another towards separate sp= ecies if not >prevented from doing so [this part modifies the above t= o allow for >development towards new species]. I tried to come up with as wide a definition as possible for PhyloCod= e because of all this disagreement. By default the only other alterna= tive is to have no species names for PhyloCode.=20 Yisrael Asper yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA > > So talk of seeing how to specify species using PhyloCode are not > > strictly a part of PhyloCode? >=20 > Yes (at least so far). >=20 > > In any event with all the various definitions of species, for > > PhyloCode would the following do? >=20 > Good luck trying to convince all biologists of one species concept.= .. >=20 > > Species:If sexually produced they are groups of actually or > > potentially interbreeding natural populations >=20 > 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 oft= en=20 > requires a lot of data that are simply not known. >=20 > > but if asexually produced they pass down their own forms with bot= h > > type of groups members diverging from one another towards separat= e > > species if not prevented from doing so. >=20 > I don't understand what you mean. >=20 > --=20 > 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail > +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++