How to translate text using browser tools
1 January 2003 Apomorphy-Based Definition Also Pinpoints a Node, and PhyloCode Names Prevent Effective Communication
Jun-ichi Kojima
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Acceptable methods of defming taxon (or clade) names in the draft PhyloCode, or so-called phylogenetic nomenclature, are “node based,” “stem based,” and “apomorphy based.” All of them define a clade name by pinpointing a node; whereas node-based and stem-based definitions require two or more taxon “specifiers” to define names, an apomorphy-based defmition requires two specifiers of different types; namely, a single-taxon specifier and a character specifier. The taxon specifier in an apomorphy-based definition is completely different from the “type” in the Linnaean system. Taxon (or clade) names in the PhyloCode are characterized in two entirely different manners: One is a name that does not change, either in its orthography or in the contents of the taxon referred to by it (or its meaning) over time; the other is a name that is just like a pure mark and thus has no meaning. Communication through such PhyloCode names is very ineffective or impossible.

Jun-ichi Kojima "Apomorphy-Based Definition Also Pinpoints a Node, and PhyloCode Names Prevent Effective Communication," The Botanical Review 69(1), 44-58, (1 January 2003). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0044:ADAPAN]2.0.CO;2
Published: 1 January 2003
JOURNAL ARTICLE
15 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top