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.
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
ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE
It is not available for individual sale.
This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
It is not available for individual sale.