[Previous by date - My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Previous by subject - Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki]
[Next by subject - Re: Nathan Wilson's question]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:53:23 -0400
From: Scott Redhead <redheads@EM.AGR.CA>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs
It is difficult to take seriously comments like that posted by Ken Kinman, = who cannot seem to recall who it was that questioned his intermediate = clades (it was not me). Mr. Kinman also completely misses the point I was = making about subscribers who are so narrowly focussed that their points of = view do not apply to a discussion about the generation of a new code. >From what I can see, Mr. Kinman (please correct me if I am wrong), is = using this listsever to advertise his classifications. I have no idea what = his classifications are based upon. I have no idea where his data is = published (perhaps he can supply a few references?). I can find no recent = reference cited in Biosis by him. Perhaps it is all in the chemistry = literature. I confirmed that he was a coeditor of the book on mammals in = 1982. Now he seems to have published a new book, "The Kinman System: = Toward a Stable Cladisto-Eclectic Classification of Organisms (Living and = Extinct; 48 Phyla, 269 Classes, 1,719 Orders)". I cannot help but notice = he named a classification system after himself. Now he wants to post his = classification here on the PhyloCode listserver. Why should anyone take = this seriously? When I visited his web site, <http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5074/>= I find heated rhetoric. It is embarrassing to read. After = reading it I decided to lower my opinion of such comments unless backed up = by some published facts. Maybe he has good points. But voicing them as he = does, he is definitely losing credibility in my eyes. It is difficult to take seriously discussions on a code that is suposed to = completely change the way the entire world is supposed to refer to living = individuals when I read about personal classifications. My scepticism is becoming cynicism. Scott R. >>> <kinman@usa.net> 05/16 4:20 PM >>> I think it was Scott who said he didn't know what I was talking about when I said intermediate clades don't have to be formally named. =20 Below is a good example, my preliminary classification of avetheropods= posted on DML this morning. Intermediate clades like avetheropods, coelurosaurs, avialae, etc., are encoded, but not "formally" recognized in = my cladisto-eclectic classifications (The Kinman System, 1994). =20 *************************************** Dear All, I decided to begin seriously constructing a cladisto-eclectic classification of Order Saurischiformes. Below is my preliminary classification of coelurosaurs, plus its immediate allosaurid sister group = (so it is really a classification of the avetheropod clade).=20 Please note that I recognize broader families (as traditionalists = tend to do). Perhaps the tyrannosaur implosion of genera will translate into a = slight implosion of family taxa as well (more like mine)? In any case, comments = are welcome. -----Ken Kinman Order Saurischiformes (in part) ...... 4 Allosauridae (=3D Carnosauria) 5A Ornitholestidae (possibly paraphyletic) B Compsognathidae 6 Tyrannosauridae ? Coeluridae 7 Ornithomimidae 8 Therizinosauridae 9 Caudipter(yg)idae _a_ Oviraptoridae 10A Alvarezsauridae B Avimimidae 11 Troodontidae 12 Dromaeosauridae (=3D Deinonychosauria) 13 Plesion _Rahonavis_ 14 {{Aves}} ****************************************** NOTES: For those of you who recognize a single clade for Therizinosauridae, Caudipteridae, and Oviraptoridae---- you would simply change the 9 to 8B (and then renumber = 10-14 to 9-13). The capital letters indicate subclades (the main clades are numbered in the order they split off). The coding symbol _a_ shows that Oviraptoridae is an exgroup from Caudipteridae. You could combine them = into an expanded holophyletic Oviraptoridae, but I wouldn't recommend this = (because it could become doubly paraphyletic if the cladograms change significantly)= .=20 Also note that I only put in one plesion, but others may be added when the classification is completed. And the {{Aves}} marker shows the cladistic placement of the exgroup Class Aves. Sister group "nesting" is not = sacrificed as in traditional eclectic classifications. =20 ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D1