[Previous by date - Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A]
[Next by date - Fw: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Next by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:47:19 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Taylor" <ck.taylor@auckland.ac.nz> To: <dinosaur@usc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:50 PM > On 16/6/04 8:30 am, "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote: > > > Well. Whether Panarthropoda _is_ an example depends on whether we consider > > Onychophora and Tardigrada well-known names. The idea seems to be to define > > all well-known names that contain living representatives as crown-groups and > > to then make Pan-clade names based on them. > > <Sputter, sputter> I'd say that both Onychophora and Tardigrada are > *very* well-known names. I agree. They're _still_ not as well known as Arthropoda, though. > Not to mention that tardigrades include perhaps the > cutest of all invertebrates.... :) Yes! Yes! Yes! http://www.baertierchen.de/wechsel.html The picture changes automatically every 20 seconds. Don't click. > > I really don't like implied names. The Pan- business could become > > like today's confusing rule of the ICZN that says if one names a family > > (-idae), one automatically names a superfamily (-oidea), subfamily (-inae) > > and tribe (-ini), and perhaps (I don't know) a subtribe (-ina), and when 100 > > years later someone uses any of those implied names for the first time, they > > have to be ascribed to the author of the family. > > Not so confusing at all. It ensures that if any family is divided into > subfamilies, then at least one subfamily has the same type genus as the > family, and it can be inferred simply from that. Also, the type subfamily > ranks the same in terms of priority as the family. So we don't get a > situation where the type subfamily is based on a different genus name from > the type family (if A-idae (publ. 1890) with no subfamilies was synonymised > with B-idae (1891) containing subfamilies B-inae and C-inae, and the type > genus A was regarded as the same subfamily as C, we wouldn't get a family > A-idae containing subfamilies B-inae and C-inae, with no indication from the > names that C-inae was the type subfamily). I wasn't complaining about the eponymy, but about the automatic (and often posthumous) authorship of the original name's author. > > While it doesn't avoid the inherent possibility for error in other common > > statements such as "mammals give birth to live young" or "marsupials are > > characterised by their marsupial bones". Or -- a real example -- "poison > > spurs are a synapomorphy of Monotremata". (They are at least one of the > > crown group of Mammalia, with at least one secondary loss; for monotremes > > poison spurs are plesiomorphic.) > > These are merely examples of being just plain wrong, then. The last one is correct _for neontologists_. The other two are just plain wrong (but horribly common). > > Of course, "Aves is the sister-group to Crocodylia" becomes even wronger, if > > I may write that, when those terms are restricted to their crown-groups. > > The statement 'Group A is sister to Group B' is, unless dealing with two > sister stem clades, always a matter of context, though - which taxa are > considered in the tree. Aves _is_ sister to Crocodylia in a tree using only > living taxa, for instance. Well... de facto, but not de jure, because their definitions don't allow them to be real sister taxa. > By now, I think this is so much the case that to > insist on a strictly correct use of 'sister taxa' would merely cause big > problems in communication, Pragmatism or idealism? For clades which steadily get newly discovered members (fossils, rainforest insects...), it may change every year which taxa are de facto sistergroups. > > BTW... about half of all occurrences of *Crocodylia* in the IPNM abstract > > booklet http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/IPNM.pdf are spelled *Crocodilia*. > > Perhaps this spelling will win? I'd like this, because it's etymologically > > correct, and people seemingly never get used to the y version anyway. > > But the type genus is spelt _Crocodylus_. Yes. This is what's etymologically nonsense, and what people seemingly can't get used to. Linné spelled it *Lacerta crocodilus*, BTW. > Similarly, I dislike the use of the name 'Ornithosuchia' for a clade > which doesn't include _Ornithosuchus_. You're in accordance with Article 11.8. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art11.html Some of Sereno's proposals will have to be dropped. > > (Are there really so many zoologists and botanists out there? What about > > "80+ %"?) > > Not to mention ecologists, molecular biologists, microbiologists... OK. Ecologists tend not to be systematists, though, and molecular biologists have a really simple taxonomy: Bacteria *E. coli* Not *E. coli* Archaea Yes! Eukaryota *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* Mammalia :-> :-> :-> Trust me. I study molecular biology. > > [...] the definition of *Mammalia* by Luo, > > Cifelli & Kielan-Jaworowska 2002 -- {*Sinoconodon* + crown-group}. > > Which, funnily enough, they didn't use in that very paper - > _Adelobasileus_ was included in Mammalia, despite falling outside the > phylogenetic definition. URGH! I must have overlooked that. > >> BTW: I DO feel Lissamphibia should be abandoned. For one thing, it was > >> originally coined to *exclude* frogs (!). > > > > 1. Nobody knows this anymore. All usages I've seen include frogs. > > A good point. After all and for instance, Insecta, when first used by > Linnaeus, included crustaceans as well as insects. Wow. > In this age of computer searches, the need for avoiding punctuation, > dialectics, etc. in names is even more important then ever, I think. A > computer can't recognise that Panmammalia and Pan-mammalia > are the same thing. They would not be. BTW, Google deals just fine with diacritics. It also displays them -- and entire other scripts -- correctly in its results. > And punctuation is the first thing to get dropped by sloppy editing, > or by misspelling. True.