Message 2001-06-0023: Re: Amphibia

Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:28:41 +0200

[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 <>
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_,



>  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

<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.
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
<italic><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>Annales des Sciences
Naturelles, Zoologie, Paris, 13e S=E9rie</fontfamily></italic> 19 (1):

	</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.




	Michel Laurin

	Equipe 'Formations squelettiques'

	CNRS - UMR 8570

	Case 7077

	Universit=E9 Paris 7 - Denis Diderot

	2, place Jussieu

	75251 Paris cedex 05


	Tel. (33) 1 44 27 36 92

	Fax. (33) 1 44 27 56 53




Feedback to <> is welcome!