Message 2005-12-0079: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:53:16 +0000

[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]

Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:53:16 +0000
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

In actual practice people would use the term species as a clade under=
 the right circumstances. People would call their children human even=
 if they were born altered by some "mad scientist" to become what a s=
cientist could call not human. Who knows maybe it will happen in our =
lifetimes. A human is anyone who is human and all their descendents t=
o a moralist. So why not have for PhyloCode a species defined as a pa=
rtial clade that's made up of all the members and descendents of an i=
mmediate branch of what would be called by NonPhyloCode usage a Genus=
 excluding any descendents who are not members of the Genus. So for e=
xample Homo is a Genus under NonPhyloCode usage and its immediate bra=
nches would be defined as the various Species of Humans for PhyloCode=
Yisrael Asper
Pittsburgh PA

> On 12/1/05, David Marjanovic <> wrote:
> > > Of course, it's meant to be a total clade. I think it might be =
> > > worded along the lines of:
> > > "Hominini =3D the most inclusive clade containing _Homo sapiens=
_ and all
> > > descendants thereof, but no other extant organisms" (p. 606).
> >
> > The "and all descendants thereof" part is already included in "cl=
> I was thinking "extant" might cover future species, and so the
> definition would collapse if any species developed from_Homo sapien=
> I suppose this really isn't the case, though: "extant" just means
> "present". So, okay, knock that part out.
> --
> Mike Keesey
> The Dinosauricon:
> Parry & Carney:


Feedback to <> is welcome!