[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - Re: Repost: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode in Cladistics]
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:55:06 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
I think then that since no agreement amongst the PhyloCoders is in a = likely=20 prediction, the concept of species should be dumped for combinations = with=20 PhyloCode and if as it appears to be that Phylocode will win it will = not be for=20 Evolution either. It can still be a useful concept for others in Biol= ogy like=20 bird watchers. Maybe PhyloCoders will insist I say Dinosaur watchers. Yisrael Asper yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA > > How about accepting the last part for Species for PhyloCode:Indiv= idual > > groups whose members are diverging from one another towards separ= ate > > species if not prevented from doing so. Sounds vague enough? >=20 > It's circular. It defines "species" using "species". >=20 > But anyway, I think agreeing on one species concept is far from an = urgent=20 > problem. Let's concentrate on the clades first. Maybe the use of sp= ecies=20 > will simply fade away for asexual organisms and fossils once the Ph= yloCode=20 > is up and running. >=20 > --=20 > Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko= ! > Satte Provisionen f=FCr GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partn= er