[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:55:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: [unknown]
To: yisraelasper@comcast.net
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:27:34 +0000 > From: yisraelasper@comcast.net >=20 > If some reject species and PhyloCode as you say can accommodate the= m > doesn't that mean that the PhyloCode camp has people rejecting any > species classifications that could ever be adopted for PhyloCode an= d > so the PhyloCode camp is divided into Speciests and NonSpeciests? Hi, Yisrael. I've seen a lot of messages from you on this list recently, and I think I've got a grip on where you're coming from. I really do think you'll find the best answers to your questions in the PhyloCode document itself rather than on this list. Please do read it, and then come back with any questions that remain. In very briefest form: the PhyloCode simply does not care what a species is. It is concerned only with clades, which are an entirely different kind of taxon. Its only concern with "species" is that a species can be used as an anchor in a clade definition; but allowing that does not necessitate taking a philosophical position on what species _means_. _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________= _______ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> http://www.miketaylor= .org.uk )_v__/\ "The idea that chocolate is better than vanilla is unscienti= fic, =09 even if it is true (:-)" -- Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.