Message 2001-06-0125: Re: Crown groups (no longer long)

Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:17:55 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: Crown groups (long)]
[Next by date - Crown groups mainstream?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Crown groups (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: Crown groups mainstream?]

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:17:55 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <>
Subject: Re: Crown groups (no longer long)

> A few points from the Marjanovic/ Headden conversation I thought I'd try
> clarify:
> 1) The idea of a crown clade [...] There
> are multiple ways to define one, including picking representative species
> (note that the code DOES recommend specific specifiers, as opposed to
> "higher" taxa).

True, I didn't use this in my post because "higher" taxa have "historically"
been used in such definitions, and I don't know the type species of all the
genera I mentioned.

> 3) Mike Keesey is a nice fella, but his website is not, in my opinion, a
> PhyloCode resource. [...] Whether his systematics conform to those
> in the
> literature or not is a matter to be investigated BEFORE his material is
> as a point of argumentation. [...] and it may be difficult for
> to separate Mike's ideas from those which are published.

All true, I have cited his website because 1. everyone on this list can
immediately have a look without spending hours in libraries and 2. it lists
lots of synonyms, and definitions for many clades, so it is quite suitable
to illustrate what I was talking about.

Perhaps I should rephrase -- should the disputes over crown groups left at
the individual cases, where they are now*, or should they be concentrated in
one spot = Recommendation?

*The Dinosauricon is current mainstream in using Mammalia and Archosauria,
but not Aves, for crown groups. Though "mainstream" only means something
like 60 -- 70 % of those that work on these groups, I guess.


Feedback to <> is welcome!