[CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals

• Previous message: [CPN] CPN Digest, Vol 16, Issue 7
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Cantino, Philip < cantino at ohio.edu 
> wrote:
> As Kevin pointed out to me in our discussions of this problem over the past 
> couple of  weeks, variability in the application of clade names due to differing 
> conceptualizations of the species used as specifiers is analogous to 
> variability in the application of clade names due to differing phylogenetic 
> hypotheses. 
I would go even further and say that it's *homologous*, at least where
hypotheses are constructed using species as taxonomic units. A
phylogenetic hypothesis cannot even be formulated until the relevant
life forms are grouped into taxonomic units (whether those units are
individuals, populations, species, or something else). Only then can
the units be related to each other in terms of descent, creating a
phylogenetic hypothesis. So the unit taxonomy is an essential part of
the hypothesis.

I used to argue that the only type of unit should be the individual,
since it's objective, but a discussion with a lichenologist disabused
me of that notion. There's no simple, objective way to mandate the
composition of any type of taxonomic unit, be it species or
individual. The Code avoids this problem by recognizing that it is a
taxonomic matter, not a nomenclatural one.

--
T. Michael Keesey http://tmkeesey.net/ 

• Previous message: [CPN] CPN Digest, Vol 16, Issue 7
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]