[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: holophyletic groups only & the future
At 02:54 PM 7/3/00 -0500, chris brochu wrote:
These are my last posts on these for a while - I actually have things to
do. I am responding to several people here.
I really do think phylogenetic taxonomy is the way taxonomy is going. It
seems to be the method of choice among nearly all systematists I work with,
and there is a growing understanding that paraphyletic assemblages should
not be recognized as taxa.
Yes, I know that is the way taxonomy is going. I think it is, in the long
run, an error. Just because everyone is doing it does not make it a good idea.
>If I'm following, creating a named group would exclude species which should
>evolutionarily be included based on some further rules for inclusion.
??????? not sure I understand, but I'd say no - a monophyletic group
includes an ancestor and ALL of its descendents (irrespective of Ashlock's
terminology, which very few people use). ...
Actually, except for coining 'holophyletic', Ashlock was remaining closer
to the older meanings of the words. But on that issue he did eventually
give it up as a lost cause. His last writings used "monophyletic" in the
modified, and now universal, Hennigian meaning.
May the peace of God be with you. firstname.lastname@example.org