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

Re: Expanding the Known Oviraptoverse

On 26 July 2011 17:02, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>   Now, I want to note something particular that I did not want to do on my 
> blogpost, because I do it ... to death. But I need to carefully reiterate it 
> here lest it seem I am being unfair: On my blogpost, I argue that Sullivan et 
> al. push the boundaries of recognizing taxa to raise taxonomy, which I think 
> is fair of me to say. I think they also have that right, and will use the 
> provided taxonomy. I will treat their nomenclature as a species contained by 
> a least inclusive clade, especially a two-part uninomial, or binomen with 
> species and "prenomen" qualifiers. Sullivan et al. use the term "genus," and 
> while I disagree on the value and efficacy of rank-based nomenclature, the 
> function of their nomenclature is useful. So let me be clear: I think that 
> the function of the "genus" in this system is useful, for a few reasons, and 
> I think those reasons are the same as that which Tim and Mickey both see it 
> as -- I simply try to divorce the functional from the conceptual, where the 
> functional is primarily based on language, and is effectively the same as the 
> least inclusive clade rooted on a species, or a "prenomen" -- the conceptual 
> is based on the "function" of a rank, and I think any attempt to salvage it 
> will fail because of this baggage. Getting rid of the term and keeping the 
> functionality is likely to be hard, but so will adoption of a ICZN-ICBN-free 
> nomenclature system, and that's getting rolling.
>   So that's what I'm going to call these names, LICs (Least Inclusive Clades).

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're proposing here, but are
you LICs different from the LITUs (Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units) of
Pleijel and Rouse (2000)?

Pleijel, Fredrik. & Rouse, Greg W. 2000. Least-inclusive taxonomic
unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B, 267: 627-630.