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

Re: Taxa nomy (and intro)

> And a last point out the monophyly under phylogenetic taxonomy. The cool
> thing about it is that taxa defined with reference to ancestry *cannot* be
> para/polyphyletic, although it may switch to being more or less inclusive.

Sadly, this is no longer the case... with the increasing flexibility
accorded under the PhyloCode, most specifically the acceptance of qualifying
clauses and multiple internal specifiers in stem-based definitions, it is
possible to define a name in a way that it may in fact refer to an entity
that does not exist. While this is disappointing to those of us who value
this aspect of phylogenetic nomenclature, it does help quell the objections
of some persons who insist on associating taxon names with phylogenetic