At 08:30 AM 2/8/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Alternatively, John, shouldn't we perhaps have a look at Dick's
>definition to ultra-taxa before deciding that it is inappropriate? In
>any case, should your version perhaps be ultimate taxon?
>
Yes, but the leaflet seems to make it quite clear what he means by the
term, the smallest recognisable and definable avian taxa, which is not what
'ultra-taxa' means, this term could mean (cf OED):
1. Taxa that occur beyond other taxa in spatial terms;
2. Taxa which transcend the limits of other taxa
3. Taxa which are taxa to an excessive or extreme degree
None of which mean what the leaflet indicates the concetp is supposed to.
As to 'ultimate taxon', yes of course, if there was only one, but there
are, according to RS, about 1500 of them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John Leonard (Dr),
PO Box 243,
Woden, ACT 2606,
Australia
http://www.spirit.net.au/~jleonard
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
quotes)
|
