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

Re: Cladistics and names

At 08:59 AM 5/15/97 -0400, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
>So, in that sense, cladisitics doesn't change anything: it still requires
>reference to a table, cladogram, or what have you.  However, a side branch
>of cladisitics called "phylogenetic taxonomy" allows explicit definitions of
>clades.  For example, "Iguanodontia" can be defined as "Iguanodon and all
>taxa sharing a more recent common ancestor with it than with Hypsilophodon".
>The emphasis is on an ancestor-based definition rather than a metaphysical
>concept of "rank".  Even as our cladograms change, and taxa move in and out
>of position relative to Iguanodon and Hypsilophodon, there will always be a
>clade composed of Iguanodon and all taxa more closely related to it than to
>Hypsilophodon, so the taxon "Iguanodontia" will remain.

   Time for a new entry in the dictionary; however, Fastovsky and Weishampel
is back at the library, so I must ask:  what is the difference between
cladistics and phylogenetic taxonomy?

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **