[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Monotremes

Two very important and very basic points that still don't seem to have come across (and then I'll really shut up):

its part of the commonly-accepted system of names, and can be
worked with, rather than simply abandoning it.

- _No_ names will be abandoned. Most will simply receive a phylogenetic definition that will fix their usage with respect to the tree, so that if people agree on the shape of the tree, they will agree on the membership and the diagnosis of the taxon the name in question refers to. The rest will likely not get a phylogenetic definition, but that's because those names are falling out of fashion anyway; it is nothing the PhyloCode has an influence on.

- A taxon, its name, and its rank are three different things. The taxon exists in nature and is discovered. The name is made up, but necessary if we want to talk about the taxon. The rank is made up and actively misleads by implying the taxon has certain qualities that it lacks (such as comparability to other taxa that one deems to have the same rank).

*Lagosuchus* isn't a relative of the rabbit, but nobody's suggesting
it be renamed.  (at least, not that I know)

Of course not. Firstly, etymology hardly matters at all under _any_ code, and secondly, *L.* was explicitely named after its superficial similarity in body shape to hares (and its phylogenetic proximity to crocs... well, closer to crocs than to lizards anyway).

See you in the forum (tomorrow evening at the earliest).