[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 Muséum 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 métro; 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 € for a single room with bathroom; 170 € 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 € 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* > Säve-Söderbergh 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* > Säve-Söderbergh 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".)