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

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

On 5/8/07, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> > Both, clades and traditional taxa (TT) can be objetively defined.
> >
> > Say, a TT could be defined in terms of it content - list based taxon.
> > It is objective. A TT could be defined in terms of characters -
> > character based taxon. And so on. It could end up to be paraphyletic
> > or polyphyletic, but its definition will remain objective (otherwise
> > nothing without evolutionary history - planets, atoms, cars, climate,
> > etc - could be objetively defined).
>
> That could be done in principle, but it would not agree with the existing
> codes of nomenclature.

Good thing, too. Diagnoses and composition lists do not necessarily
designate natural, evolutionary groups.

It's true that phylogeny isn't necessary for objective
definitions--but it sure works well for them.
--
Mike Keesey