[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 <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Crown groups (no longer long)
> A few points from the Marjanovic/ Headden conversation I thought I'd try to > 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 published > in the > literature or not is a matter to be investigated BEFORE his material is used > as a point of argumentation. [...] and it may be difficult for nonspecialists > 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.