[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,
> 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.