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

Re: VERY Stupid question, but I dont know the answer...



In a message dated 2/20/02 3:46:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:

> When PhyloCode is implemented, there will be another set of rules
>  taxonomists may adhere to. According to these rules priority goes to the
>  taxonomic name which gets published with a phylogenetic definition first,
>  and there will be no such rank as "family", only clades that happen to end
>  in "-idae" or "-aceae".

I'm all for eliminating formal ranks, but for the sake of everyone's sanity, 
can't we *please*, *please* have some sort of requirement that clades whose 
names end in -ina be nested within clades whose names end in -ini, -ini 
within -inae, -inae within -idae, and -idae within -oidea?

Also, if clades are going to be defined on anchors rather than apomorphies, 
eponymous clade names are definitely the way to go.

--Nick P.