[Previous by date - Re: subscribers]
[Next by date - subscribers (& "lophotrochozoans")]
[Previous by subject - Re: subscribers]
[Next by subject - Re: subscribers]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:16:08 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: subscribers
David Hillis' points are well taken. I would like to add that formally = naming all these clades doesn't prevent people who want to present = simplier taxonomies from doing so. Thus, if Ken Kinman wants to present a = simplified system in which only well known names and/or major clades are = represented, that's perfectly acceptable. For example, in several of his = papers, Jacques Gauthier has published taxonomies in which only major = crown clades (i.e., without the more inclusive "total' clades or any of = the "intermediate" clades composed of the crowns and only some of their = fossil outgroups) are represented. Such an approach doesn't invalidate = the names or clades that are not included; it only chooses not to = represent them for the sake of simplicity. Bob O'Hara's ideas about = systematic generalization are relevant to this discussion. O'Hara likens = taxonomy to cartography, pointing out that systematists represent = different degrees of resolution (in the sense of detail) in their = taxonomies in much the same way that cartographers represent different = degrees of resolution in their maps. In any case, the point is that = formally naming lots of clades doesn't require people such as Ken to have = all those names in their taxonomies. Kevin de Queiroz >>> "David M. Hillis" <dhillis@mail.utexas.edu> - 5/1/01 10:21 PM >>> > I'm sorry if David (Hillis) felt insulted, but I certainly never = said we >should be "unconcerned" about intermediate taxa (on the contrary, I spend = much >of my time on them). What I am saying is that there no need to give them formal names. > I see no great need for formal taxa Theropoda, Coelurosauria, >Maniraptora, etc., when informal names (theropods, coelurosaurs, = maniraptors, >etc.) suffice. Why then recognize any formal scientific names? Why not just use=20 common English names for all taxa? Because, first of all, everyone=20 doesn't speak English. Second of all, there are no rules for common=20 names, and no two people will use the same names. Your argument=20 doesn't apply to just a few taxa, it applies to all of them. There is=20 no logical justification for preferring formal scientific names for=20 just a few "special" taxa, especially when those decisions about what=20 is "special" are completely arbitrary. This is not an argument=20 against the PhyloCode, it is an argument against formal scientific=20 names in general. If we are happy using the informal name lophotrochozoans rather than=20 the scientific name Lophotrochozoa (at least in English), why not=20 just say "mammals" rather than Mammalia and "tree frogs" rather than=20 Hylidae? We could make everyone use English, even in Chinese=20 publications! That would do away with the problem of naming species,=20 too...we could just give all the species of the world common English=20 names (after all, there are millions of them! Too many to learn!) and=20 then make everyone use the English names. I don't see that this is=20 any different than your argument...clades are no less a part of the=20 Tree of Life than are species, and there is no reason to exclude some=20 (but not all) of them from formal scientific nomenclature. If you=20 don't want to use a given scientific name, fine...use the common=20 name. No one makes birders use scientific names for species, either,=20 but that doesn't mean that we should not give bird species formal=20 scientific names. > > Why not just call them lophotrochozoans, and let them remain an = informal >taxon, at the very least until we can demonstrate whether or not it is = based >on symplesiomorphies rather than synapomorphies. There are hundreds of published synapomorphies for Lophotrochozoa,=20 and the statistical support for the clade under any system of=20 evidence (parsimony or not) is strong. The fact that they are mostly=20 molecular characters is irrelevant to me; they are still evidence for=20 the group. Certainly, the evidence for Lophotrochozoa is stronger=20 than many of the formal taxa that you recognize...so who is to decide=20 which taxa are important enough to recognize with formal names? This=20 just leaves it up to authorities to argue, and systematics takes a=20 giant step back into the dark ages. David Hillis David M. Hillis Director, School of Biological Sciences Director's office: 512-232-3690 (FAX: 512-232-3699) Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor Section of Integrative Biology University of Texas Austin, TX 78712 Research Office: 512-471-5792 Lab: 512-471-5661 FAX: 512-471-3878 E-mail: dhillis@mail.utexas.edu