[Taxacom] Species monophyly!
J. Kirk Fitzhugh
kfitzhugh at nhm.org
Fri Feb 5 19:24:20 CST 2010
This requires buying into Rieppel's conception of species. Something I
deny (cf. Fitzhugh, K. 2009. Species as explanatory hypotheses:
refinements and implications. Acta Biotheoretica 57: 201-248. See also
Stamos' "The Species Problem").
Species aren't individuals. If they were, then we'd not be reacting to
organisms by inferring what can only be regarded as explanatory
hypotheses, aka species and other taxa. Instead, we'd be speaking of the
properties of species, which we can't and don't.
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> This is remarkably similar to what I was arguing on Taxacom a while ago:
> Rieppel, O. 2010: Species monophyly. Journal of zoological systematics and evolutionary research, 48: 1-8. doi<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>: 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00545.x<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1439-0469.2009.00545.x>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom