tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post4743032593661566460..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: A Minor Complaint about Google, and a Major Complaint about Ranked TaxonomyChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-31374357603391021142009-07-23T05:37:53.033+08:002009-07-23T05:37:53.033+08:00As nobody really uses subgenera it should not be p...As nobody really uses subgenera it should not be problematic to use obscure characters in characterizing some of them.Gunnarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09160004621405227245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-6392701259873866822009-07-16T01:56:49.527+08:002009-07-16T01:56:49.527+08:00I've been following your blog for a long time,...I've been following your blog for a long time, but never commented on it. Now, however, i feel I should comment that in my opinion paraphyletic taxa are definitely unaccetable under the phylogenetic systematics paradigm! Evolutionary relationships are more important than usefulness or diagnosabilty, whatever the case! So, personally I believe that keeping Spinicrus paraphyletic is not an option at all. I don't like subgenera either, so in your place I would go with the 3rd option, because it reflects evolutionary relationships and avoids using one more rank (subgenera).rafael marcondeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17977820582079641506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-46227170449524618522009-07-16T01:55:30.695+08:002009-07-16T01:55:30.695+08:00This comment has been removed by the author.rafael marcondeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17977820582079641506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-62878414063412780752009-07-16T00:22:36.368+08:002009-07-16T00:22:36.368+08:00The advantage of the subgenus approach is that is ...The advantage of the subgenus approach is that is the most congruent one to the phylogenetic approach. That is, once the <i>PhyloCode</i> is implemented, it would be easier to convert the ranked names into clade names. It allows the most harmony between the codes, as I see it.<br /><br />As for a subgenus for the rest of them, is there a problem with having a paraphyletic subgenus, <i>Spinicrus (Spinicrus)</i>?Mike Keeseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00147156174467903264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-84452961222971279562009-07-15T18:09:12.707+08:002009-07-15T18:09:12.707+08:00Why don't you implement option 4) with a twist...Why don't you implement option 4) with a twist:<br /><br />- Synonymise <i>Neopantopsalis</i> with <i>Spinicrus</i>, but keep <i>Neopantopsalis</i> as an informal species group.<br /><br />This will keep people off the temptation of creating a (paraphyletic) <i>Spinicrus</i> subgenus to hold the former species. Going the "subgenus" route just pushes the problem one rank down.Roberto Kellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15313935930998188137noreply@blogger.com