Message 2001-02-0014: Re: apomorphy-based names

Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:14:30 -0600 (CST)

[Previous by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:14:30 -0600 (CST)
From: znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
To: david baum <>
Subject: Re: apomorphy-based names

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, david baum wrote:
> David may be right that for internal political reasons we cannot yet ban
> apomorphy-based definitions.  But I hope that one day the vertebrate
> paeontological types, and whoever else is inclined towards apomorphy-based
> definitions, can be convinced to make-do with stem-based and node-based
> definitions.

	Without wishing to seem insulted, I feel I shold interject. I
understand the frustration that Dr. Baum seems to feel regarding the
differing approaches to nomenclature necessitated by our respective
disciplines (see Dr. De Quieroz's points). I certainly don't want to imply
that I think Dr. Baum is being deliberately coarse, sometimes I too feel
his frustration too. However, I feel I must defend the practitioners of PT
in vertbrate paleontology.
	Although, As Dr. De Quieroz has pointed out, VP workers may be
more inclined toward apomoprhy-baed definitions, I do not feel that we
project a *need* for them. They effectively do not exist in the
current practice of dinosaurian phylogenetic nomenclature... we all took
Baum 1995 to heart. In recent papers on the phylognetic taxonomy of
mammals and non-crown birds (within dinosaur stuidies), I have seen a
similar paucity of apomorphy-based definitions, although I do not know
this literature as well.
	Many VP non-practitioners of Phylogenetic Nomenclature advocate
character-based definitions of typological taxa, and often this can become
conflated with PN, as some non-practitioners apparenly do not "get" the
difference between an essentialist, character-based definition and a
phylogenetic, apomoprhy-based definition. This tends to come up in the
(now pro forma)  "critique" (read demonstrations of one's lack of
understanding) of phylogenetic nomenclature. However, this does not mean
that VP, as a whole, embraces apomorphy-based definitions.

	Jonathan R. Wagner



Feedback to <> is welcome!