[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
--- email@example.com wrote:
> Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > Because it rests on the assumption that a given phylogeny is real.
> > Hierarchies may change, depending on the phylogeny. For example,
> > _Maniraptora_
> > may include _Tyrannoraptora_, or _Tyrannoraptora_ may include
> > but they will always refer to the same definitions.
> I think this can be solved by using definitions with exclusive anchors.
I don't see that there's a problem to be solved. If the phylogenetic hypothesis
changes, the classification should adjust to fit it. As long as we understand
taxa to signify the clades specified by their definitions *and nothing
further*, then what does it matter if something previously thought to be a
subclade turns out to be more likely a parent clade?
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!