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

Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati

--- don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> schrieb:

> Keesy states-- "I've often thought that implementing
> the PhyloCode would be a lot
> easier if it simply used new names and didn't
> convert any traditional
> ones. (But nothing worth it is ever easy, and a
> PhyloCode without
> converted traditional names is not worth it.)"

A major stumbling block is that Linnean taxa from
(super)order rank down can usually be - and have been
for the last 100 years or so - made to correspond to a
clade, at least in vertebrate zoology.

It will probably be tough to convince anyone who's not
a taxonomist that an unfamiliar and possibly
non-descriptive term should be used in lieu of a
familiar one which denotes, for their purposes,
exactly the same entity. Whether you slap a label on
it or slap a label on it and place it in a box
together with others whose labels share the same
ending is not something I found many non-taxonomists
to care about.

(For the record, I am wary of the PhyloCode. Suffice
to say that I'd rather reserve my final judgement
until say 2015... In a nutshell, if monophyly as
understood by Hennig rather sooner than later turns
out to be an exception rather than the rule, I'll be
the last to be surprised. I'll be happy to discuss
this when the data arrives that verifies or falsifies
the gut feeling I get based on today's limited
knowledge about molecular evolution on the - roughly -
chromosomal level.)

For something entirely different: I went down to the
store today to get some smokes, and there was this
kids' magazine advertising a photo feature:


No, not New Zealand.


*slowly bangs head against the wall*



      __________________________________  Yahoo! Clever: Stellen Sie Fragen und 
finden Sie Antworten. Teilen Sie Ihr Wissen. www.yahoo.de/clever