[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: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:45:54 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05
I agree on both: > Though the concept of species is not being recognized by all one ca= n > develop a wider grouping and call it species for the purpose of > evolution Or ecology. Or whatever. > just as in physics the word velocity differs from common > usage meaning instead a change in position too.=20 > I was just proposing an idea for PhyloCode. Now I thanks to your em= ail > think that PhyloCode should just try to be compatible with any spec= ies > definition as you can't I see get everyone on the same bandwagon an= yhow. > Some just will not accept the definition of a species given by anot= her. > Species should be something that is outside of PhyloCode technicall= y > and if you have a definition of a species and you want to make it > compatible with Phylocode you should have rules for your definition= and > so should others. At worst you would have more names for the same t= hing. --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++