Talk:subclade

RFV discussion: March–December 2023
Rfv-sense: sense 2: "(genetics) A subgroup of a subgenus or haplogroup"

I see evidence of a general sense, but didn't have the patience to determine whether "a subgenus of" should be part of the definition or whether this definition is a duplication of or a subsense of def. 1 (which I just added and which seems abundantly attestable). DCDuring (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Modern taxonomy is based on cladistics, so subgenera should all be clades- by definition. The taxonomic literature is full of articles explaining why subdivisions at one rank or another aren't natural clades and are therefore invalid. The only way this sense wouldn't fit under sense 1 would be if there was a subdivision of a genus that wasn't itself a clade, i.e., containing part, but not all of more than one clade. As for haplogroups, they would presumably be clades, but I'm certainly not well read at all in the literature that discusses haplogroups, so I don't know if subclades are part of the terminology.
 * This has all the markings of a guess by someone skimming through a subject they knew nothing about- which describes a great deal of SemperBlotto's work in the life sciences. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * has an article with this definition, which was already used in the oldest revision from 2013. It cites a source, but this source is from 2022, so possibly subject to citogenesis. An earlier source, possibly contaminated by the Wiktionary entry from 2009, was briefly used but removed as being a vanity press publication. --Lambiam 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems very implausible that subclade and superclade would be used other than in deixis, ie, not in reference to a specific rank of taxon. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed and removed in favour of sense 1, then. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)