[Previous by date - Re: eumaniraptoran systematics]
[Next by date - Re: eumaniraptoran systematics]
[Previous by subject - Re: eumaniraptoran systematics]
[Next by subject - Re: eumaniraptoran systematics]
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:25:06 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at, PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: eumaniraptoran systematics
Using Vultur gryphus is a tribute to Linnaeus (it's the first bird in his =
list).
Kevin de Queiroz
>>> David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> - 4/29/02 7:26 PM >>>
Sorry for the cross-posting...
> The "Clade(x)" notation is also consistent with mathematical and
computational
> function notation. Perhaps when species are added to PhyloCode, a =
similar
> "Species(x)" notation could be added, e.g. _rex_ Osborn 1905 =3D
> Species(CM 9380) (meaning that the species' holotype is CM 9380 -- =
species
> based on cotypes could use comma-separated lists, etc.).
Interesting idea.
> I agree about the "greater-than" sign (sorry guys!!).
I don't. For me, it points in the right direction. {*Passer domesticus* >
*Deinonychus antirrhopus*} means "to find the clade, begin at *P. d.* and =
go
all the way down the tree until the point where *D. a.* branches off". The =
>
is not just an arrowhead (that could be given a shaft), it's also a part =
of
a line around the clade -- in some cladograms, stem-based taxa are =
indicated
by writing their names next to a --) part in a tree; a node-stem triplet
then shows up as --)O(-- (not at an angle of 180 , of course). The arrow
could, in my opinion, only be used to indicate such a thing if it is made
explicit that it means "to find the clade, begin at the point where *D. =
a.*
branches off the clade that leads up to *P. d.*", means, <--| or <--)
instead of <-- .
However, the usage of > shown above contrasts with the common =
habit
of putting the "most derived" group at the right end of a cladogram. The
ideal compromise, for me, would be {*Deinonychus antirrhopus* |<-- *Passer
domesticus*} for the clade intended above.
(I like *Passer domesticus* more than *Vultur gryphus* when =
"extant
birds" is meant; it's just a lot more archetypical, and [artificially] it
enjoys a worldwide distribution. Actually, I consider *Vultur* a misnomer,
as it is a New World vulture, while the Latin word vultur was for trivial
reasons only applied to certain Old World vultures... but I digress.)
(Sorry for my long-winded sentences. I'd need to draw what I've
written, and it's quarter past one at night.)
> (It also occurs to me that naming the stems "Troodontia" and
"Dromaeosauria"
> instead of Troodontoidea and Dromaeosauroidea would work, too, especially=
given
> the widespread use of the vernacular forms "troodont" and "dromaeosaur"
for
> these groups.)
Good idea. Has the extra advantage of not implying that groups with the =
same
name roots but different endings must be inside it... OK, that's only an
advantage in times of uncertain phylogenies :-)
> The problem with names based on traits, like "Psalidorhina", is that
either
> 1) They are given node- or stem-based definitions, which rarely if ever
> correspond
respectively can be known to correspond
> precisely to presence of the trait (e.g., _Amniota_, discussed
> recently on the Dinosaur Mailing List), [...]
>
> (Although it is kind of a cool name.)
I agree :-)