[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)
On 5/8/07, David Marjanovic <email@example.com> wrote:
> Both, clades and traditional taxa (TT) can be objetively defined.
> Say, a TT could be defined in terms of it content - list based taxon.
> It is objective. A TT could be defined in terms of characters -
> character based taxon. And so on. It could end up to be paraphyletic
> or polyphyletic, but its definition will remain objective (otherwise
> nothing without evolutionary history - planets, atoms, cars, climate,
> etc - could be objetively defined).
That could be done in principle, but it would not agree with the existing
codes of nomenclature.
Good thing, too. Diagnoses and composition lists do not necessarily
designate natural, evolutionary groups.
It's true that phylogeny isn't necessary for objective
definitions--but it sure works well for them.