[Previous by date - RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - Fwd: New critics]
[Previous by subject - New Scientist article on the Phylocode]
[Next by subject - New(?) Paper]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:17:36 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: New critics
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_RsNRBhkTHQg1N792tOb/Cg) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable There's a recent criticism of cladistics and the PhyloCode by Michael J. = Benton at http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html which has = just been posted to the Dinosaur Mailing List. Unfortunately the figures = are not available. Most criticisms there are unfair or point out the = problems of Sereno's practice of defining (and redefining) taxa so that = they only make any sense under his present cladogram. However, one = should have read it, and I strongly suggest to include recommendations = into the PhyloCode: a.. to be very careful with definitions (to take all proposed = phylogenies into account) b.. to include a rather large number of specifiers. For example, I = would define Aves and/or Avialae something like Neornithes > Oviraptor, = Troodon, Tyrannosaurus, Deinonychus; in my soon-to-be-published = phylogeny (see below) oviraptorosaurs are the sister group of = Metornithes, the group including the usual birds, and if I applicate the = current definitions of Aves (Archaeopteryx + Neornithes) and Avialae = (Neornithes > Velociraptor), then Tyrannosaurus, Ornithomimus, Troodon = and many others belong to both, in other words, they're birds. c.. rather not to define a name as long as there is no good consensus = on its utility Furthermore, genera (as the last rank) should be kept for quite some = time after the first version of the PhyloCode becomes active -- = otherwise, confusion will be endless. The system Sapiens Homo (Hominini = Homininae Hominidae...) might be an idea for the future (some decades = from now), but why not turning it by 180=B0 to arrive at (... Hominidae = Homininae Hominini) Homo sapiens, which is nearly where we are and thus = would provide stability? Another approach could be to give every species a "genus" uninomen, but = whereas this is feasible for nonavian dinosaurs where most genera are = monotypic, it would hardly be for extant ones like Crocodylus (by the = way, should we correct that nonsensical y?), Varanus or Bos, not to = mention insects... Most genera should not be defined so that stability isn't completely = destroyed. Archaeopteryx has been defined Archaeopteryx lithographica > = Neornithes -- in my phylogeny, this includes all dromaeosaurs = (Deinonychus, Velociraptor...). Another problematic question is what to do with the standardized endings = -idae, -inae and -ini (and the many more in ICBN) -- whether to treat = these endings as random letter combinations that are part of the name or = whether (as current usage in "dinosaurology") an -idae can't include = another -idae, and if such turns out to be the case, the less inclusive = taxon should be renamed into -inae. Reference: David Marjanovic: Is Archaeopteryx really a bird? The Dinosaur Society = Quarterly Review, in press --Boundary_(ID_RsNRBhkTHQg1N792tOb/Cg) Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>There's a recent criticism of = cladistics and=20 the PhyloCode by Michael J. Benton </FONT><FONT size=3D2>at = </FONT></FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html"><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/phylocode/biolrev.html</FONT></A><F= ONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2> which has just been posted to the = Dinosaur=20 Mailing List. Unfortunately the figures are not available. = Most=20 criticisms there are unfair or point out the problems of Sereno's = practice of=20 defining (and redefining) taxa so that they only make any sense under = his=20 present cladogram. However, one should have read it, and I strongly = suggest=20 to include recommendations into the PhyloCode:</FONT></DIV> <UL> <LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>to be very careful with definitions = (to take all=20 proposed phylogenies into account)</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>to include a rather large number=20 of specifiers. For example, I would define Aves and/or Avialae = something=20 like Neornithes > <EM>Oviraptor, Troodon, Tyrannosaurus,=20 Deinonychus</EM>; in my soon-to-be-published phylogeny (see=20 below) oviraptorosaurs are the sister group of Metornithes, the = group=20 including the usual birds, and if I applicate the current definitions = of Aves=20 <EM>(Archaeopteryx</EM> + Neornithes) and Avialae (Neornithes >=20 <EM>Velociraptor</EM>), then <EM>Tyrannosaurus</EM>, <EM>Ornithomimus, = Troodon</EM> and many others belong to both, in other words, = they're=20 birds.</FONT></LI> <LI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rather not to define a name as long as = there is no=20 good consensus on its utility</FONT></LI></UL> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Furthermore, genera (as the last rank) = should be=20 kept for quite some time after the first version of the PhyloCode = becomes active=20 -- otherwise, confusion will be <STRONG><U>endless</U></STRONG>. The = system=20 <EM>Sapiens Homo</EM> (<EM>Hominini Homininae Hominidae</EM>...) might = be an=20 idea for the future (some decades from now), but why not turning it by = 180=B0 to=20 arrive at (... <EM>Hominidae</EM> <EM>Homininae Hominini</EM>) <EM>Homo=20 sapiens</EM>, which is nearly where we are and = thus would provide=20 stability?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Another approach could be to give every = species a=20 "genus" uninomen, but whereas this is feasible for nonavian dinosaurs = where most=20 genera are monotypic, it would hardly be for extant ones like=20 <EM>Crocodylus</EM> (by the way, should we correct that nonsensical y?), = <EM>Varanus</EM> or <EM>Bos</EM>, not to mention insects...</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Most genera should <STRONG>not be=20 defined </STRONG>so that stability isn't completely=20 destroyed. <EM>Archaeopteryx</EM> has been defined = <EM>Archaeopteryx</EM>=20 <EM>lithographica</EM> > Neornithes -- in my phylogeny, this includes = all=20 dromaeosaurs (<EM>Deinonychus</EM>, = <EM>Velociraptor</EM>...).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Another problematic question is what to = do with the=20 standardized endings -idae, -inae and -ini (and the many more in ICBN) = --=20 whether to treat these endings as random letter combinations that are = part of=20 the name or whether (as current usage in "dinosaurology") an -idae can't = include=20 another -idae, and if such turns out to be the case, the less inclusive = taxon=20 should be renamed into -inae.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Reference:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>David Marjanovi<FONT = face=3DArial>ć: <STRONG>Is=20 <EM>Archaeopteryx</EM> really a bird?</STRONG> The Dinosaur Society = Quarterly=20 Review, in press</FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> --Boundary_(ID_RsNRBhkTHQg1N792tOb/Cg)--