[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)
If it will ou will not agree with existing nomenclatural codes will be
But objectivity could be achieved in a non-cladistic approach - it
will be necessary only to avoid subjective properties (a cute, light
yellow, somewhat heavy organism).
(Surely, in a biological reasoning a cladistic/evolutionary
classification will be, in most of cases, more informative than an
On 5/8/07, David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.