Cladistics and "Eclecticism"

[P.Hovenkamp]

At 10:59 AM 2/7/02 -0500, Thomas DiBenedetto wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Jensen
>I hate to continue this, but how many times do I have to say this:  As a
>species
>level taxon, A no longer exists.  It's obsolent, it's invalid, call it what
>you
>will.
>*********
>Maybe this is semantics, but it strikes me as so strange. If a corporal
>Jensen is promoted to sargent Jensen, would it ever occur to someone to say
>"As a corporal level soldier, Jensen no longer exists. He is obsolent,
>invalid". I suppose it is technically correct in a sense, but it doesn't
>sound like a very good way to communicate meaning.

I don't see this as a very appropriate example.

I am an individual being called Peter Hovenkamp. I was called Peter
Hovenkamp as a boy, and after I was promoted to adulthood, I was still
called Peter Hovenkamp. So far, so good. But after I'm deceased, there will
only be my two sons, Jan Hovenkamp and Pieter Hovenkamp. Is there any sense
to a system in which they should also be called "Peter Hovenkamp"?