[Taxacom] To clade or not to clade

Barry Roth barry_roth at yahoo.com
Wed May 24 23:59:02 CDT 2006


In either case, additional information is necessary for the term to be meaningful in a given instance of its usage.  For "congeneric," one must know the scope of the genus in question.  This is often specified by the names of taxa in question, but in a situation where said scope and concept are fluid and debated (and that is precisely the context in which these terms are most likely to come into the conversation), not necessarily so.  For "concladal," the local topography of the tree under discussion must be known.  As you said, the clade must be specified.  In the instances where the term is most likely to be useful -- in the trenches of phylogenetic argument, remember -- the need to assign some formal rank (tribe? supertribe? infraorder?) in the midst of discussion would often be a burden.  "Consupertribal?"
   
  Barry

Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net> wrote:
  On 2006-05-23 21:49, Barry Roth wrote:
> I also like the word (did I coin it, or just dream
> that I did?) "concladal" -- meaning, obviously, "belonging to the
> same clade." It follows the model of "congeneric" and "confamilial"
> but without attribution of any particular taxonomic rank.

Assuming a single origin of extant Earth life (and the evidence for that 
is good), any two species are concladal. "Congeneric" works explicitly 
because of the rank; "concladal" works only if the clade is specified.

		
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make  PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list