Cladistic analysis, Gregory Paul...

[Ken Kinman]

Curtis,
     No I wouldn't disagree.  To prematurely freeze *any* findings into
formal taxa is asking for trouble.
     However, strict cladists as a whole have been doing it at an
accelerating pace.  Worse yet, with three kinds of cladistic definitions,
they will probably start creating even more formal taxa for slightly
differing stem-based, noded-based, and apomorphy-based taxa (it's already
happening in dinosaurs).  And of course there will also be the phylocode
frenzy to get one's favorite clade priority before someone else beats you to
it.  How depressing.
             ---- Ken

******************************************
>From: Curtis Clark <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Cladistic analysis, Gregory Paul...
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:13:11 -0700
>
>At 11:25 2002.09.16, Ken Kinman wrote:
>>If you prematurely freeze [...] findings into
>>formal taxa (formal  nomenclature, you are just asking for trouble.
>
>I replaced "cladistic" with an ellipsis; I suspect Ken would not disagree
>with the incomplete quote.
>



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx