[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Taxa nomy (and intro)
--- David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
An excellent point. Another problem is that requiring a full set of ranks for
every species can lead to redundant taxa, as can be seen in older taxonomies
where _Archaeopteryx lithographica_ represents a monotypic subgenu
(_Archaeopteryx (Archaeopteryx)_), a monotypic genus (_Archaeopteryx_), a
monotypic subtribe (Archaeopterygina), a monotypic tribe (Archaeoptergini), a
monotypic subfamily (Archaeopteryginae), a monotypic family
(Archaeopterygidae), a monotypic superfamily (Archaeopterygoidea), a monotypic
order (Archaeopterygiformes), and even a monotypic subclass (Archaeornithes)!
And this is not even the worst example. Let's say A is the last common
ancestral species of all animals, and A' is that ancestral species' direct
ancestral species. Now suppose B is a non-animalian descendant species of A',
with no descendants. B has to get monotypic taxa for every rank from Kingdom
down to Subgenus!!
(And that's without even going into the issue of the taxonomy of A', which is
very similar to the issue HP Marjanovic addressed above.)
=====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster