|
All I meant was, if there exists
a clade X-idae, there should be no more inclusive clade than X-idae whose name
consists of a genus name plus -idae, -inae, -ini, or -ina. We've still
got -ia, -iformes, -omorpha, -i, -ae, -es, etc., to work with (though I think
it would not be a terrible idea eventually to rank some of these relative to
one another as well).
I think we've all figured out by now that
assigning a particular clade name type to any sort of *absolute* rank is
futile. However, I still think ranking the clade name types *relative*
to one another is extremely helpful. Can't you see a benefit to being
able to look at a clade whose name ends in -idae and know instantly that it is
less inclusive than one ending in -oidea (if it exists) and more inclusive
than one ending in -inae?
I think it is a very good idea --
once the phylogeny is worked out. Otherwise such clades will need pretty
elaborated definitions to make sure their order remains the
same.
It reminds me a lot of the
-morpha, -formes, -a thing that has already happened several times (with
Dinosauria, Archosauria, Lepidosauria, Mammalia, Amniota... useful and
relative, even though Mammaliamorpha is node-based, unlike the other
-morpha names).
Should someone fw this to the PhyloCode mailing
list?
|