[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>:
> > 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
> changes, the classification should adjust to fit it. As long as we
> 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?
Fine. But then don't create (and don't use) names based on -oidea, -idae, -
inae, -ini, or -ina. Look, taxonomic relationships are not ranked, but they
*really are* hierarchically nested. If we're careful about how we set it up,
we can have a system that is both true to the phylogeny and easily rememberable
and interpretable: the best of both worlds. I, for one, see this as a good
goal, and one worth working towards.
Actually, it's very easy if you allow clades as anchors.
Or, if you want to start over, start over. Just use -ia for all names, and
don't re-use stems (like dinosaur-). Oh, and only use apomorphy-based names
for apomorphy-based clades.