clashing codes; mammals & morganucodonts

Ron at Ron at
Mon Jan 14 16:39:42 CST 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas DiBenedetto" <tdib at OCEANCONSERVANCY.ORG>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: clashing codes; mammals & morganucodonts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Kinman
> ...The point is that those who are not strict cladists prefer a
> character-based Mammalia.  ...
> ... Ask most mammalogists what is and what isn't a mammal, and there is
> little problem.  But ask a strict cladist, and the answer depends on
> cladogram he happens to be using that day....
> ... Perhaps that is one reason
> a lot of strict cladists actually oppose phylocode....
> ****
> Ken,
> FYI - there are "strict cladists" who oppose the phylocode precisely
> they prefer character (apomorphy)-based taxa. I don't think that the use
> the term "strict cladist" is very helpful in discussion like this, for no
> one really knows what exactly you mean by that term, except that it
> to people that you disagree with.
> -Tom DiBenedetto

It is very true that the interpretation of Ken's intent and meaning re
"strict cladist" will likely vary a in the minds of his readers.   Thus,
this post.   To me I hear him saying (in the code context of this thread)
that the strict cladist is one totally opposed to the biological species
concept and the IC_N code type of nomenclature.   Sorry Ken if I am way off
here, as while I have followed this thread with much interest I have
scanned many of the posts and may well have missed some very key points.
However, the reason for this post is to simply give the very subjective
"opinion" or "interpretation" of one reader.

Ron Gatrelle

More information about the Taxacom mailing list