[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]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05
> --- Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht --- > Von: yisraelasper@comcast.net > 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= ing > any descendents who are not members of the Genus. So for example Ho= mo > is a Genus under NonPhyloCode usage and its immediate branches woul= d > be defined as the various Species of Humans for PhyloCode. I disagree. Firstly, it would mean that ancestors of a species could = never=20 belong to a species themselves; this is against all current usage.= =20 Secondly, it would make the PhyloCode dependent on the other codes to= tell=20 what a genus is -- and remember that one worker's genus is another's= =20 subgenus and yet another's tribe or subtribe! Thirdly, it would only = add=20 yet another species concept to the existing... 25? 40? Oh, and the example isn't good. Your proposal would probably mean the= end=20 of *Homo erectus* and maybe several more of the currently recognized,= erm,=20 er, morphospecies. --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++