Message 2001-06-0022: Re: Fwd: Vermes

Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:03:58 -0400

[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>
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" <> - 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)?

 Home Page               <>
  The Dinosauricon        <>
   personal                <> --> <>
    Dinosauricon-related    <>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>


Feedback to <> is welcome!