Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "Phylocode name" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
    Tytuł:
    The Phylocode: Beating a dead horse?
    Autorzy:
    Benton, M J
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/22908.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2007
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Paleobiologii PAN
    Tematy:
    systematics
    Phylocode concept
    stability
    Phylocode name
    Linnaean rank
    paleontology
    Linnaean system
    Opis:
    The concept of the Phylocode has been evolving for some twenty years, and is supported by Lee and Skinner (2007): I argue against it here. The first issue is stability, and biologists must decide whether they seek rigidity (Phylocode) or flexibility and conservativeness of clade contents (Linnaean codes). Phylocode names for taxa are by definition stable because they are established as labels for clades that are rigidly defined as geometric constructs. But this is not real stability because the species contained within those clades can change dramatically: an example is given where Phylocode practice forces a decision about the name Deinonychosauria, which can contain 20 or 10,000 species depending on which current tree is correct. Linnaean systems offer real stability (= conservativeness + flexibility) where the taxon name can be moved subtly up and down nodes in a tree to keep its association with a particular character or group of species. Proponents of the Phylocode argue that category/rank terms should be dispensed with, and yet they have no need to do this. Everyone accepts that Linnaean ranks are subjective, and yet there is no benefit in abandoning ranks because they have proved to be of such value to users of classifications, and genera and families, for example, act as valuable surrogates for species in large−scale evolutionary and ecological studies. Finally, the Phylocode extends regulation beyond names and their proper use into determining the validity of phylogenetic hypotheses, and this will act as a limit on normal scientific debate.
    Źródło:
    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica; 2007, 52, 3
    0567-7920
    Pojawia się w:
    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    The PhyloCode, or alternative nomenclature: Why it is not beneficial to palaeontology, either
    Autorzy:
    Monsch, K.A.
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/23327.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2006
    Wydawca:
    Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Paleobiologii PAN
    Tematy:
    nomenclature
    paleontology
    Phylocode name
    phylogenesis
    systematics
    taxonomy
    Opis:
    Methodological stability in biological nomenclature is being upset recently, with potential consequences for palaeontology. Some systematists, inspired mainly by de Queiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994), reject traditional nomenclature in favour of an alternative “Phylogenetic Nomenclature” (PN). Following de Queiroz (2006) I consistently call this Phylogenetic Nomenclature, rather than Phylogenetic taxonomy, as it is often done. Important tenets of PN are the abandonment of hierarchic ranks and binomial names, and establishing name definitions based on cladogram shape (node−, stem−, and stem−modified node−based definitions), apomorphies (apomorphy−based definitions), or a combination of apomorphies and tree topology (apomorphy−modified node−based definition). For an explanation of such definitions, see Cantino and de Queiroz (2003) and Sereno (2005). The practice of Phylogenetic Nomenclature is laid out in an Internet document, the PhyloCode (Cantino and de Queiroz 2003). PN is seen as the natural next step in the evolution of taxonomy: from Linnaeus’ (1753, 1758) “creationist taxonomy” to Hennig’s (1966) cladistic taxonomy. Hence, Linnaeus’ ideas should be removed from nomenclature, which will then reflect phylogeny. Despite the dominance of cladistics as a framework for taxonomy, the validity of its philosophies and methodologies are still questioned (e.g., Szalay 2000). I encourage everyone, independently of school of taxonomy adhered to, to take interest in PN, because: (1) we are all creators or users of taxonomies and classifications, (2) PN is radically different from the current standard, (3) the Preface to the PhyloCode suggests it should ultimately replace the current Codes of Nomenclature (of bacteria, LaPage et al. 1992; of Zoology, ICZN 1999; of Botany, Greuter et al. 2000). I argue herein, why palaeontologists should not follow PN.
    Źródło:
    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica; 2006, 51, 3
    0567-7920
    Pojawia się w:
    Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies