Posted by:
CKing
at Sat Jan 10 12:16:44 2004 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ]
For those who subscribe to Hennig's definition of "monophyletic taxa", i.e. one ancestor and all of its descendants, there is a constant need to either lump excessively (thus ignoring morphological disparity) or split excessively (thus erecting or resurrecting taxa that are not morphologically distinguishable from one another). For those who favor splitting excessively because of their adherence to Hennigian taxonomic dictates, there is thus a constant need to come up with new names for old taxa and to define these otherwise undefinable, contrived taxa. Wells and Wellington have saved these Hennigians a lot of time by providing them an existing list of available names. There is no need to dream up new names and also no need to expend the effort to define otherwise undefinable, contrived taxa.
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]
|
