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

Re: SVP Preview



Quoting "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.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
> 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?

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.

--Nick P.