[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]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05
> Of course, it's meant to be a total clade. I think it might be bett= er > 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= de > definition of "clade" hints at, but doesn't commit to)? Sure, it > doesn't matter much for our current levels of phylogenetic resoluti= on > 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= ed > cladogram?" (p. 599, emphasis retained). For studies of fossil > vertebrates, probably not. But what about [...] Good point, I missed this in my offlist critique. --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++