Cladistics and "Eclecticism"

Thomas DiBenedetto tdib at OCEANCONSERVANCY.ORG
Wed Feb 6 14:55:14 CST 2002

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jensen
Each letter refers to a single a single ancestor-descendant lineage.  In my
view, A continues as a species because it is, in fact, the same thing.
But that is clearly not the case. How can you call A a single
ancestor-descendant lineage when it has C budding off the side of it?
Clearly A is NOT a single lineage - it is a branched lineage; a higher
... you made A "extinct" as a
species level taxon by changing its name to D (see below).  That's the point
am making - A, as a species level taxon, is no longer recognized (hence
How many times do I have to say this? "Extinction" is a totally ridiculous
way of characterizing the simple FACT that A has evolved from being an
unbranched lineage (hence ranked as a species) to a being a branched lineage
(hence a higher taxon).
My point is that I don't believe that species A must be renamed in order to
acknowledge the fact that species C is derived from species A.
TAXON A is not renamed at all. Its rank is merely adjusted to reflect the
reality that it is now branched.
I sense you are totally conflating an ecological sense of "species" with the
systematic sense of species as taxa.
..... there is no need, under such circumstance, to
rename species A - it has not changed in any way except that it is the
progenitor of another species.
Once agian, "species A" as some sort of an ecological unit may look the
same, but the reality of the lineage relationships are different. Yesterday
the lineage was terminal - a species. Today it is branched, a higher taxon.
It (the original lineage) is still called A. Its rank has changed however.

Tom DiBenedetto

More information about the Taxacom mailing list