[Previous by date - PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications]
[Next by date - Re: 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 14:26:56 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: PhyloCode Taxonomic Classifications
Dear Mike Taylor I see now that species can be for whatever uses but is not a necessar= y term for Evolution. Yisrael Asper yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA If it ain't broke, I can't fix it. > > > > If PhyloCode wins it will take over the vocabulary of Evoluti= on. > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand that either. ~:-) > > > > In dictionaries you have listed specialized uses for words like t= he > > word work in ordinary life and the word work in physics. Physics > > doesn't care how much someone sweats to declare something work. S= o if > > PhyloCode wins it will be used for Evolution irrespective of ordi= nary > > usage like with dinosaurs and birds. >=20 > I disagree. Firstly, the PhyloCode does not try to define evolution= . It=20 > defines clade names and nothing else. Secondly, evolution already h= as a=20 > definition -- the one evolutionary biologists use. The PhyloCode co= uldn't=20 > change that even if it wanted to. >=20 > Really, stop being concerned about dictionaries and glossaries. :-) >=20 > > My goodness! Welcome to the 21st. century! >=20 > Indeed. :-) >=20 > --=20 > Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? > NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie