[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?
I looked at the logic of this post, but, warned by the intro that a
wholesale discussion was not being invited, didn't comment.
So, just for entertainment, consider:
<It is important to remember, in such discussion, that a clade is not a
group, it is a monophyletic entity, and clades are indicated by an anlysis,
not fully discovered. The Nixon and Carpenter approach to taxonomy is firmly
grounded in the notion of naming groups based on
essentialist characteristics, and associating a name with a "taxon concept."
This perspective is antithetical to the methods espoused by many advocates
of phylogenetic nomenclature, in which the natural ordering of life (through
phylogenetic relationships) is discovered, and clades are
named with the intention of discovering the known descendants of the
specified common ancestor.>
So, 'a clade is not a group, it is a monophyletic entity...'. I suspect this
means that the composition of the clade may be changed without changing the
name. If so, the entity is a construct built more on expectation than
observation; if the entity weren't expected to continue to exist, it could
Also, 'clades are indicated by an anlysis, not fully discovered.' and
'clades are named with the intention of discovering the known descendants of
the specified common ancestor.'
The supposed 'descendants' of an actually hypothetical ancestor are included
because of an analysis, an inference which may not be correct ('not fully
discovered'). Then '...clades are named with the intention of discovering
the known descendants of the specified common ancestor.' So, as I
understand it, the intention to do further analysis qualifies the analyst to
name his/her hypothetical entities for general usage.
Finally, though the analysis is not necessarily complete and correct ('not
fully discovered') the author says, 'the natural ordering of life (through
phylogenetic relationships) is discovered...' That's a very definite
statement which appears to contradict some prior statements.
Just one other quote:
'...a phylogenetic name ALWAYS refers to the same clade, and therefore the
same included species. The crux of phylogenetic nomenclature is that the
included species are HYPOTHESIZED...'
Responding to the author's comment, please consider this a brief, partial