From thinkit8@lycos.com Sat Jul 14 02:13:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 14 Jul 2001 09:13:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 53197 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2001 09:13:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Jul 2001 09:13:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jk.egroups.com) (10.1.10.92) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Jul 2001 09:13:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.134] by jk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2001 09:13:36 -0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:13:34 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Taxonomy Message-ID: <9ip2fu+q8b8@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <01071404430708.01127@neofelis> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 446 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.5.121.32 From: thinkit8@lycos.com --- In lojban@y..., Pierre Abbat wrote: > I have noticed a cladistic bias in the terms used for taxonomy. I am not a > cladist, and even cladists have to talk to non-cladists sometimes, so I feel > there should be words for kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and > species. Any suggestions? > > phma they are so arbitrary anyway...i'd just as soon use "klesi xi" pa re ci vo mu xa ze, for kingdom, phylum, and so on.