[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Aliwalia [from Adam Yates]]
[Next by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:28:41 +0200
From: Michel Laurin <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Amphibia
Hi all phylocoders, I have been away for over a week, and I really don't have time to answer all the points about nomenclature that I would like to, but here are a few comments. >Mike Keesey wrote: > ><<Just thinking ... wouldn't this recommend that _Synapsida_ and >_Therapsida_ be called _Theropsida_ and _Neotheropsida_, >respectively?> > > They would have to explicitly state this in the definitions. >We can preserve Amphibia, Synapsida, etc.. However, as I've >stated before, paraphyletic taxa are not useful without explicit >philosophy on their existence: they are not evolutionarily >unique groups, in the sense of a stem or node-based taxon. They >are united by their superficiality, not biological actuality, >even if they are biologically actually a group. It's the >philosophy that works for vulger terminology, and that's where I >feel paraphyeletic names should stay. Amphibia and Synapsida can >still be defined as nodes or stems, but I think the latter _has_ >been defined; I'm not sure about the former. Yes, Amphibia has already been defined, originally in the following paper: <smaller>Gauthier, J., Cannatella, D. C., De Queiroz, K., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1989. Tetrapod phylogeny. Pp. 337-353 in Fernholm, B., Bremer, K., and Jornvall, H. (ed), The Hierarchy of Life. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (Biomedical Division), New York. </smaller>Unfortunately, the same definition was subsequently given to the name Temnospondyli, in the following paper: <smaller>de Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. 1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. <italic><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>0000,0000,00D4</pa= ram>Systematic Zoology</color></fontfamily></italic> 39 (4): 307-322. </smaller>I have reviewed this question, as well as the taxonomy of all tetrapods (but only the main groups), in the following paper, that I may send to anybody who is really interested in this topic: <smaller>Laurin, M. 1998. <fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>The importance of global parsimony and historical bias in understanding tetrapod evolution. Part I-systematics, middle ear evolution, and jaw suspension</fontfamily>. <italic><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, Paris, 13e S=E9rie</fontfamily></italic> 19 (1): 1-42. </smaller>I have also written about Sauria, Amniota, Reptilia, Sauropsida, etc., but I can't expand on this today. If I have some time, I will try to address some of these points, in a few days. Sincerely, Michel <smaller>********************************** Michel Laurin Equipe 'Formations squelettiques' CNRS - UMR 8570 Case 7077 Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot 2, place Jussieu 75251 Paris cedex 05 France Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92 Fax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53 </smaller>http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.html <smaller>**********************************</smaller>