[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Taxa nomy?
> As far as I'm concerned it's currently a massive free-for-all with new
> additions to the Linnean basis appearing on a regular basis (Super-family,
> Super-order, sub-order, tribe).
All these have been added in the 19th century, and the infra- business was
there at least by the mid-20th century. Yes, cladists have added lots more
(microrder, parvorder, nanorder, megafamily, grandfamily...) in the late
1980s, but all these have been forgotten as fast as they had been invented.
> We need some amazing "Super-Symposium" on an international stage to thrash
> out a usable system for all of us.
Such a symposium is planned. Scroll down to the "First International
Phylogenetic Nomenclature meeting", which will take place in Paris on July
6th to 9th this year, at www.phylocode.org. :-)
> Even cladistics needs some form of "divisions"
> to organise evolutionary linkage.
>From my experience it doesn't.
BTW: Cladistics and phylogenetic nomenclature is not the same. Cladistics,
aka phylogenetic systematics, is the term for all scientific (testable,
reproducible...) methods how to build a phylogenetic tree (max. parsimony,
max. likelihood, and probably Bayesian methods). Phylogenetic nomenclature
is the method (not scientific, but based on definitions) how to bind labels
to such a tree (no matter by which method it was arrived at -- even though I
haven't yet found a supporter of PN who wasn't also a cladist). Linnaean
taxonomy is the art of how to chop the tree into separate pieces that fit in
labelled boxes of largely fixed size.