[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <email@example.com>:
> --- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Quoting Dinogeorge@aol.com:
> > > formation of names, you quickly lose track of where things are in the
> > > hierarchy. Quick, without looking it up, tell me how these taxa might be
> > > nested: Dinosauromorpha, Dinosauriformes, Dinosauria, Eudinosauria,
> > > Dinosauroidea. Or Sauropoda, Eusauropoda, Macronaria, Titanosauriformes,
> > > Titanosauromorpha, Somphospondyli, Titanosauria, Diplodociformes,
> > > Diplodocimorpha. But given, e.g., Tyrannosauria, Tyrannosauroidea,
> > > Tyrannosauridae, Tyrannosaurinae, Tyrannosaurini, and Tyrannosaurina,
> > > you know the endings convention, you can immediately see that those
> > are
> > > in a nested sequence, rank or no rank.
> > Yes! This is precisely a point I tried to make some months ago. Why is it
> > that (at least some) pracititioners of PT on this list don't see this as a
> > good thing?
> Because it rests on the assumption that a given phylogeny is real.
> Hierarchies may change, depending on the phylogeny. For example,
> may include _Tyrannoraptora_, or _Tyrannoraptora_ may include _Maniraptora_,
> but they will always refer to the same definitions.
I think this can be solved by using definitions with exclusive anchors.