[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)

--- Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> schrieb:

> Anthony Docimo writes:
>  >> Their names are made up, but they can be
> defined. What _ranks_ are
>  >> given to those names is an _entirely_ subjective
> decision. Surely
>  >> you have noticed that no two published
> classifications of any
>  >> group are identical: that's because nobody can
> say that any
>  >> classification is right or wrong, _
>  > 
>  > really?
>  > 
>  > so, who is it who says that the new critters
> {that live *only* on
>  > lobster eyebrows} are _not_ a new phylum?
> *curious*
> Anyone!  No-one!  You!  Me!
> Seriously.  You could write a paper naming a new
> phylum
> Anthonydocimoalia for these lobster-eyebrow
> critters, and submit it to
> a journal.  If the editors and peer-reviewers agreed
> with your
> argument, then it would be published and the new
> phylum would be
> established in the literature.
> And then someone else would come along with another
> paper that argues
> that Anthonydocimoalia does not merit the rank of
> "phylum" and that it
> should instead be considered a parasuperinfraclass
> of Arthropoda, and
> _that_ opinion would be established in the
> literature, too.
> And so on.

Didn't happen until now IIRC. Micrognathozoa and
Cycliophora (the latter is the lobster commensale in
question, _Symbion_) were never seriously questioned,
because as a phylum, they're simply too distinct and
they have a stem group size of 0 and a tiny crown
group (which helps). The rank of phylum is one of
those that should always or nearly always be definable
as identical in content to some clade.

Hmmm. Actually, Class is the only "Linnean" rank where
non-monophyly is a major problem.



      __________________________________  Yahoo! Clever: Sie haben Fragen? 
Yahoo! Nutzer antworten Ihnen. www.yahoo.de/clever