Re: Taxon Search

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:17:32 +0100 (MET)
> From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
>
> -- there is no "phylogenetic taxonomy", only phylogenetic
> nomenclature.  (The term "taxonomy" was invented as "the theory of
> classifications".  People who apply phylogenetic nomenclature _do
> not classify_ -- they don't hack the Tree of Life apart and try to
> shoehorn the pieces into a set of boxes of predetermined sizes;
> instead they tie labels to defined places on the intact tree.)

I'm not entirely sure I swallow this.  Given that any particular
naming of a node or a stem is a nomenclatural act, surely the choice
of which nodes and stems to name is a subjective one requiring
knowledge of the relevant groups, and making those choices is
therefore a taxonomic procedure?  To pick an example totally at
random, isn't it "taxonomy" to choose to attach a name to the node
(Diplodocus + Dicraeosaurus) but not to (Diplodocus + Apatosaurus)?

> TaxonSearch is clearly a good thing (apart from the criteria for
> determining "active" and "inactive" status, I'd say). I can't wait
> for it to grow!

I also find the listings of definitional authors a little
idiosyncratic.  For example, the definition of Neosauropoda is
attributed to Sereno 2005 even though it is identical (modulo the
specific wording) to the definition found in Wilson and Sereno 1998.
So it looks at though Sereno is retro-scooping _his own_ paper.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Barry Potter is Barry Potter ... and therefore, Barry Potter
         is whatever" -- Phil Gray.