[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
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
- 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).