[CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals

[de Queiroz, Kevin]

When it comes to the definition of "clade", it's a bit over-simplified to declare that other people are simply wrong.  They would argue that the definition of "clade" is "an ancestral _species_ and all of its descendants".  Moreover, some of them might also argue that it is useful to distinguish terminologically between groups composed of an ancestor and all of its descendants that conform (more or less) to a nested hierarchical pattern (species, uniparental organisms) and those that do not (biparental organisms).

Kevin
________________________________________
From: cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu [cpn-bounces at listserv.ohio.edu] On Behalf Of David Marjanovic [david.marjanovic at gmx.at]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:29 AM
To: Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature
Subject: Re: [CPN] next set of CBM-related proposals

> I do not favor Mike's proposed  revision (of the definition of
 > "taxon") for the following reason: some people view clades/higher
 > taxa not as monophyletic groups of organisms but as monophyletic
 > groups of species.

They're wrong. "Clade" = "an ancestor and all its descendants", even if
that's a small part of a species or partially overlaps with one or
several species. The PhyloCode allows the naming of LITUs, as it should.

Besides, under most species concepts, not only are "speciation" and
"cladogenesis" not synonyms*, but neither is even a subset of the other;
inevitably, then, clades will usually contain entire species and parts
of other species under those species concepts.

* Although lots of people, even in the primary literature, use
"speciation" when they mean "cladogenesis". It's as if almost nobody
even knew the latter term.
_______________________________________________
CPN mailing list
CPN at listserv.ohio.edu
http://listserv.ohio.edu/mailman/listinfo/cpn