[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 <koreke77@yahoo.de> 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
PhyloCode.

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
off-list.

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. -- Mike Keesey