paraphyletic spp, was Re: One origin? (viral evolution)

Curtis Clark jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU
Mon Jul 23 14:26:45 CDT 2001


At 01:29 PM 7/23/2001, Thomas DiBenedetto wrote:
>Curtis, aren't
>you one who firmly believes that we should classify on the basis of
>relationships rather than essentialistic attributes (believing that more
>than I do)? The ancestral species now has descendant branches, whereas it
>did not before.

This is one of the reasons why I support Phylocode as a parallel naming
system. We can even specify lineage groups *within* species, especially if
we accept that they may overlap, and lineage groups are biologically
important to recognize at all levels, but I think it would be a loss to
forgo the ability to specify a group of populations in an ongoing manner
simply because one of their peripheral isolates survived.

I suppose others could make the case for specifying grades (although I
still maintain that the biological processes and consequences of peripheral
isolation are much better understood than "levels of adaptation"), and this
is still another reason to support Phylocode as a parallel system. Ethanoic
acid and Unnilquadium tell me that at least one other science has no
problems with parallel systems of nomenclature.




--
Curtis Clark                 http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department             Voice (909) 869-4062
California State Polytechnic University      FAX (909) 869-4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                 jcclark at csupomona.edu




More information about the Taxacom mailing list