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

• Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:48 AM, David Marjanovic
< david.marjanovic at gmx.at 
> wrote:
>  
>> 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. 
>  
> I think we have an easy way out: as least as far as specifiers are 
> concerned, we can use specimens as opposed to individuals. That leaves 
> the decision to the curators. :-) 
Specimens and individuals aren't quite the same thing, though. An
individual is (potentially) a taxonomic unit within a hypothesis. A
specimen, when used as a specifier, *indicates* a taxonomic unit (or
union of units) within a hypothesis.

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

• Previous message: [CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals
• Next message: [CPN] Fwd: PLEASE VOTE on CBM-related proposals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]