Message 2005-12-0076: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:15:58 +0100 (MET)

[Previous by date - PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:15:58 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

> Of course, it's meant to be a total clade. I think it might be bett=
> worded along the lines of:
> "Hominini =3D the most inclusive clade containing _Homo sapiens_ an=
d all
> descendants thereof, but no other extant organisms" (p. 606).

The "and all descendants thereof" part is already included in "clade"=

> Why not build the system from the organism level up (as the PhyloCo=
> definition of "clade" hints at, but doesn't commit to)? Sure, it
> doesn't matter much for our current levels of phylogenetic resoluti=
> in most fields, but why not be prepared?

I agree.

> "For the graphical depiction of phylogenetic definitions,
> therefore, is there a compelling reason *not* to use an unadulterat=
> cladogram?" (p. 599, emphasis retained). For studies of fossil
> vertebrates, probably not. But what about [...]

Good point, I missed this in my offlist critique.

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++


Feedback to <> is welcome!