Message 2005-12-0080: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:22:18 +0100 (MET)

[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: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:22:18 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05

> --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht ---
> Von:

> So why not have for PhyloCode a species defined as a partial clade
> that's made up of all the members and descendents of an immediate
> branch of what would be called by NonPhyloCode usage a Genus exclud=
> any descendents who are not members of the Genus. So for example Ho=
> is a Genus under NonPhyloCode usage and its immediate branches woul=
> be defined as the various Species of Humans for PhyloCode.

I disagree. Firstly, it would mean that ancestors of a species could =
belong to a species themselves; this is against all current usage.=
Secondly, it would make the PhyloCode dependent on the other codes to=
what a genus is -- and remember that one worker's genus is another's=
subgenus and yet another's tribe or subtribe! Thirdly, it would only =
yet another species concept to the existing... 25? 40?

Oh, and the example isn't good. Your proposal would probably mean the=
of *Homo erectus* and maybe several more of the currently recognized,=
er, morphospecies.

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


Feedback to <> is welcome!