Message 2003-08-0003: Re: Announcement: Second circular of the 1rst International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:04:52 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: phlyogenetic systematics/the PhyloCode -- new philosophical overview]
[Next by date - Re: Announcement: Second circular [...] [short!]]
[Previous by subject - Re: Announcement: Second circular [...] [short!]]
[Next by subject - Re: Another Possible Problem with Naming Conventions for Pan=]

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:04:52 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>, PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Second circular of the 1rst International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Sorry for the cross-posting...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
To: "dinosaur" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:20 PM

> I've been asked to post this. [...]
> ------------------
>
> First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
> Paris, July 6-9, 2004
> Second circular
> Dear colleagues,
> The First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting will be held in
> Paris, at the Mus√¬©um National d'Histoire Naturelle [...] from July 6 to
July 9,
> 2004.

What can I say? Yabbadabbadoo! Needless to say, I'll come... :-9

> Papers presented at the meeting will be assembled
> into a symposium volume (after going through a standard refereeing
process)
> whose publication will coincide with the implementation of the PhyloCode.
> This volume will represent the official starting point of phylogenetic
> nomenclature as implemented in the PhyloCode, and the names defined within
> it will be the first ones established under the new code.

Sounds really great.

> Payment should be sent [...] by cheque

Bad organization... :-(

> Registration fee waivers are available upon request in justified cases
> (i.e., if you have no grant support to pay the cost of attending the
> meeting).

Good organization! Very good organization! :-)

> Several train stations are
> located within Paris.  An excellent network of subways can bring you to
> within a few hundred meters of almost any location in Paris,

...although, having been there on July 1st and 19th, I must warn that most
stations only have conventional stairs -- you'll have to carry your heavy
suitcases. In addition, there are always lots of people in the m√¬©tro;
getting both yourself and your suitcase into and out of it may pose a
problem.

> General Information
> The official time in France is GMT + 2 hours.

(In summer, otherwise + 1 h, but that's irrelevant for this congress.)

> The electricity supply is 220V, 50 Hz AC

And the plugs have a peculiar shape. :-)

> Accommodations
> Paris is not a low-budget destination, and the summer is the tourist
season.
> [...]
> Price: 150 ‚ā¨ for a single room with bathroom; 170 ‚ā¨ for a double room with
> bathroom.
> Breakfast: included

On the other hand, if you don't need e. g. a single or double room, you can
have it much cheaper. Spend half an hour at www.parisbienvenue.com, and
you'll find the youth hostels which start (in summer) at 14 ‚ā¨ per night,
breakfast included.

> Abstracts should follow the format given in the example (below):
> [...] Thus, I propose to define the name
> *Stegocephali* Cope 1868 (converted name) for the most inclusive clade
> containing *Eryops megacephalus* but not *Panderichthys rhombolepis*,
> *Elpistostege watsoni*, *Eusthenopteron foordi*, *Osteolepis panderi* and
> *Strepsodus sauroides*.  The name *Stegocephali* formerly included all the
> earliest limbed vertebrates, but was paraphyletic before it was given a
> phylogenetic definition in the late 1990s.

And this definition, rarely used except by its authors, has distorted many
faces... people don't like to be *Stegocephali* themselves. Adding the huge
diversity of *Amniota* to *Stegocephali* might perhaps even be considered at
odds with Recommendation 11A http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art11.html.
While I agree that the clade mentioned here needs a name, I think this
shouldn't be *Stegocephali*, nor do I think that this name -- which has been
invented to label a paraphyletic group, and has been used this way for
decades -- should be converted at all. What about something fantasy-less,
like *Tetrapodiformes*? (In analogy to
Archosauromorpha(Archosauriformes(Archosauria)),
Crocodylomorpha(Crocodyliformes(Crocodylia)),
Dinosauromorpha(Dinosauriformes(Dinosauria)),
Mammaliamorpha(Mammaliaformes(Mammalia)) and a few more.)

(For those unfamiliar with the mentioned animals... the current consensus
phylogeny is something like this:

--+--coelacanths [e. g. *Latimeria*]
  `--+--lungfish
     `--+--I assume *Strepsodus* is a rhizodont?
        `--+--*Osteolepis*
           `--+--*Eusthenopteron*
              `--+--*Panderichthys* [has fins, like all above]
                 `--+--*Elpistostege* [fins or digits unknown]
                    `--animals known to have digits, including *Eryops*)

> The name *Anthracosauria* has
> always included embolomeres; it has sometimes included seymouriamorphs,
and
> much more rarely, amniotes.  I propose to define *Anthracosauria*
> S√¬§ve-S√¬∂derbergh 1934 (converted clade name) as the largest clade that
> includes *Anthracosaurus russelli* but neither *Homo sapiens* nor
*Ascaphus
> truei*.

Good idea. (Just looked it up... like I dimly remembered, *Ascaphus* is a
very basal living frog from New Zealand.)

>  Thus defined, the contents of Anthracosauria can expand to include
> seymouriamorphs if they form a clade with embolomeres that excludes
> lissamphibians and amniotes.

However, the monophyly of Lissamphibia, although supported by most studies
including the most recent one, is not universally recognized... maybe a
urodele and a caecilian should be added to the definition above?

> [...] *Diadectes sideropelicus*.

(A herbivorous close relative of Amniota.)

> [....] *Amphibia* Linnaeus
> 1758 (converted clade name) as the largest clade that includes *Ascaphus
> truei* but not *Homo sapiens*,

In case anyone asks me, this is a very good idea (but see above).

> and by defining the name *Reptiliomorpha*
> S√¬§ve-S√¬∂derbergh 1934 (converted clade name) as the largest clade that
> includes *Homo sapiens* but not *Ascaphus truei*.

Similarly to Stegocephali above, I think that Reptilia, and therefore
Reptiliomorpha, should not be defined at all. I prefer a node-stem triplet
of *Amniota*(*Theropsida*, *Sauropsida*), with *Sauropsida* containing
*Anapsida* and *Romeriida*. But I agree that the mentioned clade needs a
name. Considering the fact that "Amniotiformes" has already appeared in the
Internet... why not *Amniotomorpha*?

> [...] *Diadectes sideropelicus*
> but not *Solenodonsaurus janenschi*, *Seymouria baylorensis*, *Homo
sapiens*,
> *Eothyris parkeyi*, and *Procolophon trigoniceps*.

(*Solenodonsaurus* is an unspectacular animal closely related to amniotes
and diadectomorphs, *Eothyris* is a basal synapsid, *Procolophon* is a small
herbivorous sauropsid which is most likely rather closely related to
turtles, and which is in any case one of the mentioned "parareptiles".)


  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!