[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Batch o refs



In a message dated 95-09-29 16:41:01 EDT, swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Stan
Friesen) writes:

>From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
> > In a message dated 95-09-29 14:20:45 EDT, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu
>(th81)
> > writes:
> > 
> > >Of course, if you add in parataxonomy, you can add dozens upon hundreds
>upon
> > >thousands upon... of additional parataxa for any one genus ...
> > 
> > But we don't DO this! We exercise some restraint (a term certain cladists
> > might want to become familiar with).
> > 
>Or, as I put it to myself: why would we *want* to??
>
>

Exactly right. The whole point of using parataxa is not to litter biology
with superfluous names but to clean up some of the mess the cladists have
created. Besides being phylogenetic, we believe taxonomies should be
manageable; hence my concept of a "useful parataxon."