Re: Croc classification

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Salisbury" <steve_salisbury@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:23 AM


> > The truly important point is that phylogenetically-defined names have
> > stability in meaning; stability in content, in diagnosis, and in time
> > of origin can never be stable (under ANY taxonomic system)
>
> Eh?  How can a cladistically defined name have meaning in a
> non-cladistically based taxonomic system?

Did anyone say that?

> At the end of the day (and hopefully this chain!)

Have a look or two at the archives. There have been discussions about
cladistics from the very beginning. This is unlikely to _ever_ stop unless
one "party" dies out.

> it all depends on whether
> you believe taxonomies should reflect phylogenies.  I don't think
taxonomic
> categorisations have anything to do with phylogeny or, for that matter,
> evolutionary transformations.  To my mind, taxonomic definitions that rely
> on assumptions of relationship are therefore meaningless (sorry Chris).
> Taxonomies are much easier to defend when they don't involve phylogenetic
> presuppositions.

So you want _pure phenetics_? Do I understand you correctly? ~:-| Reminds me
of the good old stamp-collecting metaphor...
I'd like to add that taxonomies that ignore phylogeny are actually hard to
defend -- that's why phenetics broke down. IMHO we don't need a difference
between systematics and phylogenetics.

And what is the definition of Eusuchia? :-)

*****************************************
Nobody can say he understands quantum mechanics.
        Richard Feynman