[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)



Anthony Docimo writes:
 > >  > >Two traditional taxonomists might agree on the exact same
 > >  > >phylogenetic hypothesis, but each could come up with different
 > >  > >classification. Examples:
 > >  > >
 > >  > >Family Hylobatidae
 > >  > >  Genus Hylobates
 > >  > >Family Pongidae
 > >  > >  Genus Gorilla
 > >  > >  Genus Pongo
 > >  > >  Genus Pan
 > >  > >Family Hominidae
 > >  > >  Genus Homo
 > >  > >
 > >  > >Family Hylobatidae
 > >  > >  Genus Bunopithecus
 > >  > >  Genus Hylobates
 > >  > >  Genus Nomascus
 > >  > >  Genus Symphalangus
 > >  > >Family Hominidae
 > >  > >Subfamily Ponginae
 > >  > >  Genus Pongo
 > >  > >Subfamily Homininae
 > >  > >  Genus Gorilla
 > >  > >  Genus Homo
 > >  > >  Genus Pan
 > >  >
 > >  > as far as I can tell, these are two different cladograms *as well as* 
 > >  > two
 > >  > different classifications.
 > >
 > >But you _can't_ tell,
 > 
 > you wrote two cladograms.

I didn't write any cladograms.  Someone (Mike Keesey?  Tim Williams?
David Marjanovic) wrote two rank-based classifications.  But these are
(as we keep trying to tell you) COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS from
cladograms.

Since I think I have made that point plenty of times now, I am going
to bow out of this thread.  Good luck to those of you who remain.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <mike@indexdata.com>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "He looks around; he sees angels in the architecture, spinning
         in infinity" -- Paul Simon, "Call Me Al"