[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Defining Ornithischia (was Re:)
David Marjanovic (email@example.com) wrote:
> Both "definition" and "diagnosis" are in the Glossary, as follows:
> "A statement in words that purports to give those characters which, in
> combination, uniquely distinguish a taxon [Arts. 12, 13]."
> "A statement in words that purports to give those characters which
> differentiate the taxon from other taxa with which it is likely to be
> They seem to be treated as synonyms, then.
This is a reference to the historical ambiguity between "definition" and
"diagnosis" which, really do seem to be synonymous. However, one does
to simply collect a unique group of features, but any one of those
be shared with a relative, while the other asks to find characters NOT
similar taxa. There is also a functional difference.
Interesting, then, that the one that mentions characters not found in other
taxa -- thus the stricter one of the two -- is the "diagnosis", not the
"definition". I submit that the Committee was somewhat confused on this
point and didn't think the distinction mattered.
Pet peeve alert.
A taxonomic definition may include a character or suite, and is in fact
suggested in the PhyloCode for purposes of trait-based definitions:
"Wing-powered flight in *Vultur gryphus*," for example. Thus, "Loss of
calcaneal spur" can be argued to be a valid point in a definition of a
name, without _being_ the diagnosis, even if it were also part of it.
It can be part of a phylogenetic definition, yes (and would automatically
also be part of the diagnosis of the same clade).