[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati
On 5/5/07, evelyn sobielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The point is rather than non-monophyletic descent
*also* exists, and not actually little of it.
Descent is descent. One organism's genes are copied into a new
organism. I can't make sense of the phrase "non-monophyletic descent".
Groups are monophyletic, not descent itself.
The goal of the PhyloCode is the ability to unambiguously associate a
name with a group. If a group does not consist of one ancestor and all
of its descendants, then it doesn't get a clade name under the
The methods provided by the PhyloCode for defining clades work: they
will always yield one ancestor and all descendants thereof, or a null
set in the case of potentially self-destructing definitions. If you'd
like to discuss how this works mathematically, please contact me
The point seems not that phylogenies are unfeasible as
a classification framework
As David pointed out, phylogenetic nomenclature is not classification;
it's an alternative to classification.