[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)

On 5/10/07, evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de> wrote:

> What's an example, and how would it be defined? If

The hinted-at

That already sounds like a potentially self-destructing definition (branch-based with multiple external specifiers).

Odontoanseres (or whatnot), Metaves, for example
(Basal taxa attaching to *something* at very shaky
supports is the most common phenomenon). Delimitation
may run anywhere between PhyloCode-compatible and

What do you mean by "delimitation"? Composition lists?

Those that do that usually are more Linnean bent and
use a phylogenetic delimitation only secondarily. See
Mirandornithes for a (likely valid) example.

What's the definition of Mirandornithes?

> bad thing. Even if given a non-self-destructing
> definition, there's
> always the possibility of heterodefinitional
> synonymy with an older,
> more appropriate clade name.

Not in those I saw, no. The number of clades proposed
with PhyloCode in mind is still small.

Yes, but if a name isn't given a definition, it won't get to compete for priority, anyway.

Mike Keesey