Message 2001-06-0124: Re: Crown groups (long)

Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:48:20 -0400 (EDT)

[Previous by date - Re: Crown groups (long)]
[Next by date - Re: Crown groups (no longer long)]
[Previous by subject - Re: Crown groups (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: Crown groups (no longer long)]

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <>
To: kritosaurus <>
Cc: PhyloCode mailing list <>
Subject: Re: Crown groups (long)

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, kritosaurus wrote:

> 2) To my knowledge, no one interested in Phylogenetic Nomenclature has
> seriously accepted a phylogenetic definition which could, within the general
> context in which we approach PN, result in a para- or polyphyletic group,
> apart from cases in which the result is actually a contradictory definition
> which is effectively meaningless (see Article 11.9, example 3)... in the
> past, I have pointed out to this group that improper wording of stem-based
> definitions may result in paraphyly). PN begins and ends with the naming of
> clades (and, for some of us, species).

PhyloCode allows for such definitions, though -- but they are seen to
result (possibly) in invalid taxa, not paraphyletic groups.

> 3) Mike Keesey is a nice fella,
Aw, shucks.

> but his website is not, in my opinion, a PhyloCode resource.

Not until I start adding citations, no.

> Mike appears to be trying to generate a useable system
> for his own use. Whether his systematics conform to those published in the
> literature or not is a matter to be investigated BEFORE his material is used
> as a point of argumentation. I know Mike, I like Mike, but Mike has his own
> ideas on Phylogenetic Nomenclature, ones which sometimes do not reflect the
> mainstream. He may have some examples worth discussing, but there are some
> departures from published work, and it may be difficult for nonspecialists
> to separate Mike's ideas from those which are published.

News to me, since the Dinosauricon is more of an attempt to show what's
commonly accepted in the field, and not to promote my own idiosyncratic
views (which I am not well-informed enough to have). What specifically is
not mainstream on my site? (I know of a few minor ones which I will
probably be weeding out, but for the most part....)

I think the post which this is replying to may be a bit misleading. I do
not use _Avesuchia_ and _Avemetatarsalia_ on my site -- I list them as
synonyms of _Archosauria_ and _Ornithosuchia_, respectively. I probably
will eventually use _Avemetatarsalia_ instead of _Ornithosuchia_ for
Clade(_Passer_ <-- _Crocodylus_), because of PhyloCode's recommendation
that taxa named for genera be defined so as to always include the types
species of the genus. (_Ornithosuchus_ is likely not an ornithosuchian,
based on the aforementioned definition.) But I have zero problems using
_Archosauria_ as a crown group.

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


Feedback to <> is welcome!