Greetings:
Sam James wrote:
> My 2 cents/pence/pfennig worth:
>> First, few of the phylocode options discussed in a recent paper on the
> subject - there were 13 of them - are really uninomials. They are more like
> a binomial in many respects than a uninomial. I say this because there
> seems to be some gut reaction to the "uni". Maybe we would be better off
> calling the new schemes "phylonomials" or something like that.
Why not just shorten it up to "nomials"?
> The question of what to do with "sp." when a species has not been
> determined is simple. One places it in the next most inclusive clade/group.
If clade/groups are "nested" relationships won't many people visualize
the nesting to be some sort of rank?
bye for now
Tom Parker
<tparker at lacsd.org>
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net/hypermail/annelida/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
