Re: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 5/10/07, evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > What's an example, and how would it be defined? If
>
> The hinted-at
> parrots-cockatoos-but-not-nestorines-clade,

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
> half-Linnean-certainly-self-destructive.

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