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

Re: -idae, -oidea, etc.



 
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?