[Taxacom] Species monophyly!

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

This requires buying into Rieppel's conception of species. Something I 
deny (cf. Fitzhugh, K. 2009. Species as explanatory hypotheses: 
refinements and implications. Acta Biotheoretica 57: 201-248. See also 
Stamos' "The Species Problem").

Species aren't individuals. If they were, then we'd not be reacting to 
organisms by inferring what can only be regarded as explanatory 
hypotheses, aka species and other taxa. Instead, we'd be speaking of the 
properties of species, which we can't and don't.

Kirk

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> This is remarkably similar to what I was arguing on Taxacom a while ago:
>
> Rieppel, O. 2010: Species monophyly. Journal of zoological systematics and evolutionary research, 48: 1-8. doi<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>: 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2009.00545.x<http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1439-0469.2009.00545.x>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>