足球——中国杯：中国对阵威尔士
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @BrendanFurneaux I agree with you. Also probably most important for a novice to biology like OP to appreciate is that taxonomy itself is much much much older and relative to that history, doing taxonomy based on phylogenetics is brand new. It's also really the only method in scientific use today, though many older taxonomic relics persist in lay language. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Brendan Furneaux | I would add that although cladistics is by far the dominant philosophy of taxonomy in the 21st century, the actual term "cladistics" is not in much current use, because there is little need to contrast it with its alternatives (e.g., phenetics). In my experience, modern researchers engaged in assigning names to the clades of a phylogenetic tree typically refers to that aspect of their work as "taxonomy" rather than "cladistics". | |
| 2 days ago | history | edited | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| 2 days ago | history | answered | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |