Re: Taxa nomy?

["Ken Carpenter" <KCarpenter@dmns.org>]

Contrary to popular misconception (by some), the Linnaean system is live and 
doing well. Advocates for the Phylo-Code have yet to have the terminology 
accepted by the international zoological community. The major problem is that 
the Code is primarily (not exclusively) advocated by some vertebrate 
paleontologists because of the unusual nature (bones, partial skeletons, etc.) 
of the specimens. This is NOT an issue with the majority of the zoological 
community which deal with living organisms. There has been a trend in recent 
years towards a more middle of the road approach whereby the strengths of the 
Linnaean system and of the Phylo-Code are being used by vertebrate 
paleontologists. One very big misconception I repeatedly note on the DML is 
that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature deals with categories 
higher than family. Not so. It clearly spells out that it limits its self to 
Family, Genus and Species. These three categories do not conflict with 
cladistic anal!
 ys!
is. 
Ken

Kenneth Carpenter, Ph.D.
Curator of Lower Vertebrate Paleontology &
Chief Preparator
Dept. of Earth Sciences
Denver Museum of Natural History 
2001 Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80205

Phone: (303)370-6392
Fax: (303)331-6492
email: KCarpenter@DMNS.org

For fun:
 http://dino.lm.com/artists/display.php?name=Kcarpenter


>>> <zone65@bigpond.com> 09/Mar/04 >>>
I'm still not quite clear on this - supposedly, the concept of Linnaean 
taxonomy is out and cladistics is in... but I keep seeing 'genus' and 
'species' bandied about, as well as 'taxa'. And nobody actually says 
'class' anymore, but the distinctions 'mammal', 'reptile' 'amphibian' 
and 'bird' are used with gay abandon (only now, 'bird' is a sub... 
thingy of 'reptile'). So, what really gives?

Peter M