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

Re: [Re: Non-serpentine lacertids (was RE:WHAT'S GOING ON?)]



chris brochu wrote:

>Ladies and Gentlemen,

>       Second, there are several operations that are getting conflated,
>but could be viewed as logically separate.  These include:
>
>- the recognition of monophyletic taxa alone, and not erecting
>supraspecific paraphyletic taxa.
>
>- abandonment of Linnean ranks.
>
>- using phylogeny to define group names and not character possession.

Not that I mean to throw a random card into the debate, but I'd like to
bring up a topic that I previously asked Kevin Padian (in the days of
snail-mail).

If cladistics insists on assiging a name to each node of a clade, then
there would be an awful lot of names to recognize and use. Particularly
when you have clades nested several layes deep, then it becomes unwieldy.
Padian replied to the effect that this is being addresses, that perhaps
some nodes will remain unnamed. Well, is this the case?

Raymond Thaddeus C. Ancog
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
Philippines