[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]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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 yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA > On 12/1/05, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote: > > > Of course, it's meant to be a total clade. I think it might be = better > > > 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= ade". >=20 > I was thinking "extant" might cover future species, and so the > definition would collapse if any species developed from_Homo sapien= s_. > I suppose this really isn't the case, though: "extant" just means > "present". So, okay, knock that part out. > -- > Mike Keesey > The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com > Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com