Latin names versus scientific names [was: So much for nomenclatural stability]

[Curtis Clark]

on 2005-03-10 20:56 Ken Kinman wrote:
> In his 1979 paper, "The Limits of Cladism" (Systematic Zoology,
> 28:416-440), David Hull bemoaned the fact that "no methods have been
> set out thus far which permit the inclusion of both sorts of
> information [genealogy and divergence] in a single classification in
> such a way that both are retrievable."

You can go on about this until the cows come home, but the fact of the
matter is that you separate reptiles from birds on the basis of the lack
of an apomorphy. "Divergence" is fine when all you have is Tyrannosaurus
and Struthio, but if we were able to look in isolation at the single
speciation event that gave birth to your birds from your reptiles, we'd
be hard-pressed to say how it diverged more. (No fair saying "look what
the birds have become"--we're separating birds and reptiles, not
hummingbirds and turtles.)

> The Kinman System is polythetic, in the sense
> that it reflects both genealogy and anagenetic divergence.

Okay, tell me how it does the latter. And while you're at it, define
"anagenetic divergence".

--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062