[Previous by date - Re: Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Amphibia]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:03:58 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Vermes
Actually, the situation is somewhat complicated, and Recommendation 10A =
does not actually say that a name that was previously used to refer to a =
paraphyletic group should not be used in preference to one that has been =
explicitly used for the clade in question. The reason is that the =
advantages of using a name that has been explicitly applied to a clade can =
be offset by its lack of familiarity and use. One of the primary =
functions of taxon names is to provide access to the literature, and =
therefore it may sometimes be preferable to use a name that was formerly =
applied to a paraphyletic group if that name is more widely known and =
used. Thus, the person who first establishes the name of a particular =
clade (the "first revisor") has the responsibility of making a thoughtful =
decision. The case or "Synapsida" vs. "Theropsida" is a good example of =
this tradeoff. =20
Kevin de Queiroz
>>> "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com> - 4/23/01 1:21 PM >>>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Philip Cantino wrote:
> If I interpret correctly what Mike is saying, I think both of his
> suggestions are already covered by Recommendation 10A. The first
> sentence of Rec. 10A ("Clade names should be selected in such a way
> as to minimize disruption of current usage") addresses Mike's concern
> about conversions that drastically change membership. The rest of
> 10A recommends the use of a preexisting name for the clade to be
> named rather than adopting (with expanded membership) a preexisting
> name of a paraphyletic group stemming from the same ancestor as the
> clade to be named. I think this is the same thing that Mike is
> suggesting.
Whoops! You're correct. I've read the code through a couple times, but
apparently that wasn't enough....
Anyway, wouldn't this recommendation probably go against the "cladization"
of _Reptilia_ and _Osteichthyes_? And wouldn't it definitely advocate
usage of _Theropsida_ and _Neotheropsida_ over _Synapsida_ and
_Therapsida_ (respectively)?
___________________________________________________________________________=
__
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>