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

Re: Taxa nomy (and intro)



> I dont know of this was implied or not, but Linnaeanism has no problems
> accommodating the principal [sic] that only monophyletic groups should
receive names.

Oh yes, it has such problems, because it requires that every species is put
in a genus. For example, it is impossible to assign the ancestor of any two
genera to a monophyletic genus. Assign it to one or the other of its
descendants, and that genus is then paraphyletic; give it a genus of its
own, and that genus is doubly paraphyletic; lump all three into one genus,
and you've merely moved the problem.

> 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.

Well said! :-)