[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Nick Pharris () wrote:
<Hence my argument that, if you don't like apomorphy-based definitions,
don't use apomorphy-based names!>
And attempting to use reasoning in a scientific format won't help, I
gather? The problem primarily concerned the redefinition, pending
PhyloCode implementation, of the name Carinatae, which had previously been
defined. The authors of the new definition even argued for a priority of
definition ... then sought to alter this by applying definitions based on
apomorphies named for features found in the taxa. This is annoying, and
only partly involves the problems of using apomorphy-based definitions in
the first place.
The name is defined on a node-based definition to begin with, though the
original use and subsequent use before settling on a definition was much
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!