[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Croc classification
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Salisbury" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:23 AM
> > The truly important point is that phylogenetically-defined names have
> > stability in meaning; stability in content, in diagnosis, and in time
> > of origin can never be stable (under ANY taxonomic system)
> Eh? How can a cladistically defined name have meaning in a
> non-cladistically based taxonomic system?
Did anyone say that?
> At the end of the day (and hopefully this chain!)
Have a look or two at the archives. There have been discussions about
cladistics from the very beginning. This is unlikely to _ever_ stop unless
one "party" dies out.
> it all depends on whether
> you believe taxonomies should reflect phylogenies. I don't think
> categorisations have anything to do with phylogeny or, for that matter,
> evolutionary transformations. To my mind, taxonomic definitions that rely
> on assumptions of relationship are therefore meaningless (sorry Chris).
> Taxonomies are much easier to defend when they don't involve phylogenetic
So you want _pure phenetics_? Do I understand you correctly? ~:-| Reminds me
of the good old stamp-collecting metaphor...
I'd like to add that taxonomies that ignore phylogeny are actually hard to
defend -- that's why phenetics broke down. IMHO we don't need a difference
between systematics and phylogenetics.
And what is the definition of Eusuchia? :-)
Nobody can say he understands quantum mechanics.