[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by date - PhyloCode: Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_]
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:20:02 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05
>=20 > > I was just proposing an idea for PhyloCode. Now I thanks to your = email > > think that PhyloCode should just try to be compatible with any sp= ecies > > definition as you can't I see get everyone on the same bandwagon = anyhow. > > Some just will not accept the definition of a species given by an= other. > > Species should be something that is outside of PhyloCode technica= lly > > and if you have a definition of a species and you want to make it > > compatible with Phylocode you should have rules for your definiti= on and > > so should others. At worst you would have more names for the same= thing. This would allow some creatures to be labeled still a member of a spe= cies under Evolution but not in ordinary language just as I noticed t= hat spiders are not labeled insects in scientific usage but they sure= are in ordinary usage. I see even in scientific usage the ambiguity = that the term species undergoes to begin with as when a subspecies is= discovered so what was previously labeled a species could now be lab= eled a subspecies thus mixing up the family tree. Yisrael Asper yisraelasper@comcast.net Pittsburgh PA -------------- Original message ---------------------- =46rom: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> > I agree on both: >=20 > > Though the concept of species is not being recognized by all one = can > > develop a wider grouping and call it species for the purpose of > > evolution >=20 > Or ecology. Or whatever. >=20 > > just as in physics the word velocity differs from common > > usage meaning instead a change in position too.=20 >=20 > > I was just proposing an idea for PhyloCode. Now I thanks to your = email > > think that PhyloCode should just try to be compatible with any sp= ecies > > definition as you can't I see get everyone on the same bandwagon = anyhow. > > Some just will not accept the definition of a species given by an= other. > > Species should be something that is outside of PhyloCode technica= lly > > and if you have a definition of a species and you want to make it > > compatible with Phylocode you should have rules for your definiti= on and > > so should others. At worst you would have more names for the same= thing. >=20 > --=20 > 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail > +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++