[Previous by date - Fw: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Next by date - Fw: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: Directions, PhyloCode Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:15:01 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Cc: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:49 PM
Subject: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
> As David pointed out, the abstracts for this are online-
> http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/IPNM.pdf . Congratulations to him for
> authoring an abstract himself. I've not read the whole thing yet, but the
> number of definitions I find problematic amazes me.
>
> First, we have Gauthier's continuing insistance on apomorphy-based clades,
> which will only lead to uncertain placement on the cladogram and uncertain
> application to intermediate states.
> Diapsida Osborn 1903 = Apomorphy (1st reptile with Caiman crocodilus' two
> temporal arches/fenestra).
That name _really_ cries for an apomorphy-based definition. The apomorphy is
very unambiguous (unlike "powered flight" or "feathers"), and fossils around
the base of Diapsida often include skulls, so I don't see a serious problem
here.
> Rhynchocephalia Guenther 1867 = Apomorphy (1st lepidosaur with Sphenodon
> punctatus' premaxillary chisels).
Probably similarly unambiguous. I just hope we can use *Sphenodontida* or
suchlike for the stem. :-)
> Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci 1990 = Apomorphy (1st archosaur with Caiman
> crocodilus' fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal crurotarsal
articulation).
Should better retain its original stem-based definition. Ah, this will be
replaced with *Pancrocodylia*...
> Gauthier et al. also define Reptilia and Sauria to include Aves! I mean,
> sure birds are near certainly reptiles, but why should we force it?
Recommendation 11A Example 1 (http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art11.html,
scroll down far down) agrees with you -- the example being *Dinosauria*.
> Reptilia Laurentus 1768 = Crown (Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus +
> Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus).
People will consider it proven that phylogenetic nomenclature is crazy.
Laurentius, BTW.
> Sauria MacCartney 1802 = Crown (Sphenodon punctatus +
> Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus).
Why *Draco*?
I've never seen Sauria being used precladistically in anywhere near this
sense. It's always used as a synonym of the rarer name Lacertilia -- the
paraphyletic lizards without snakes and sometimes amphisbaenians.
> The good ol' node-stem triplet of Sauria, Lepidosauromorpha and
> Archosauromorpha is destroyed by Gauthier et al. as well.
Isn't all that old... Why not *Neodiapsida* instead of *Sauria*? Usually
names starting with Neo- describe much smaller clades than the corresponding
prefix-less names; the current *Neodiapsida* includes almost all diapsids.
I'd like a solution similar to *Sauropoda* -- *Eusauropoda* --
*Neosauropoda*, *Theropoda* -- "Eutheropoda" -- *Neotheropoda* and *Aves* --
*Euornithes* -- *Neornithes*.
> Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri +
> Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).
This is really weird. Why not keeping it stem-based?
> Finally, Gauthier et al. add Compsognathus to the definition of
Archosauria-
> Archosauria Cope 1869 = Crown (Caiman crocodilus + Compsognathus longipes
+
> Vultur gryphus).
> Just why are dinosaurs constrained as archosaurs?
Perhaps just to be really certain, so that the BANDits can't complain?
> Luckily, Reisz has better definitions for some of the above clades-
> Reptilia: Clade (Testudo hermani, Crocodylus niloticus, Sphenodon
punctatus,
> Iguana iguana)
First, *T. hermanni*. Second, I don't like this either; see my abstract.
> Diapsida: Clade (Petrolacosaurus kansensis, Iguana iguana, not Captorhinus
> aguti, Procolophon trigoniceps, Paleothyris acadiana)
Currently a heterodefinitional synonym of the apomorphy-based one. Could
stay so.
> As does Sereno (gasp!)-
> Archosauria: Crown Clade (Crocodylus niloticus and Passer domesticus)
Fine, fine. But using a nonavian dinosaur would have been even better (Rec.
11A).
> Neornithes finally gets an official definition, from Sereno-
> Neornithes: Crown Clade (Passer domesticus not Crocodylus niloticus)
=8-)
> But he still can't get the hang of defining clades based on eponymous
taxa-
> Nodosauridae: Clade (Panoplosaurus mirus not Ankylosaurus magniventris)
> Nodosaurinae: Clade (Panoplosaurus mirus not Sarcolestes leedsi,
> Hylaeosaurus armatus, Polacanthus foxii)
> Iguanodontia: Clade (Parasaurolophus walkeri not Hypsilophodon foxii,
> Thescelosaurus neglectus, Parksosaurus warreni, Orodromeus makelai,
> Othnielia rex, Zephyrosaurus schaffi, Yandusaurus hongheensis)
> Hadrosauriformes: Clade (Iguanodon bernissartensis and Parasaurolophus
> walkeri)
> Hadrosauroidea: Clade (Parasaurolophus walkeri not Iguanodon
> bernissartensis)
Awww!
> And isn't the type species of Stegosaurus S. armatus? Why does he use S.
> stenops? Wagner knows to use S. armatus.
*S. armatus* is the type. *S. stenops* is better known... or at least much
more famous. Has more beautiful plates.
> Interestingly, Neornithischia seems to be the marginocephalian stem-
> Neornithischia: Clade (Triceratops horridus not Ankylosaurus magniventris,
> Stegosaurus stenops and Parasaurolophus walkeri)
Weird. Really.
> And Sereno's always right, of course, so let's define Heterodontosaurus to
> be an ornithopod! ;-)
> Ornithopoda: Clade (Heterodontosaurus tucki and Parasaurolophus walkeri)
> I'll be using Wagner's definition-
> Ornithopoda: Clade (I. bernissartensis not A. magniventris, S. armatus, or
> C. montanus)
I agree. But only one of these two definitions can survive!
> More apomorphy-based definitions, this time from Padian-
> Pterosauria (Pterosauromorpha with fourth metacarpal and digit
hypertrophied
> to support wing membrane synapomorphic with Pterodactylus antiquus)
> Pterodactyloidea (Pterosauria with metacarpus at least 80% as long as
> humerus synapomorphic with Pterodactylus antiquus)
> So imagine Peters is right, and Longisquama and Sharovipteryx are the
> closest relatives of pterosaurs AND have elongated fourth manual digits
that
> support membranes. They'd be pterosaurs. Or are they not _wing_
membranes
> because they weren't used for flight? But if Sharovipteryx glided using
its
> leg-wings, do its tiny arm wings count because they assist flight? Ugh.
> Apomorphy-based definitions MUST STOP!
Oh, they aren't even the problem. If he's right, then *Pterosauria* _does
not exist_. Why? Because *Pterosauromorpha* is defined as a part of
*Archosauria* -- and at least *Longisquama* is most likely not an archosaur.
The problems with foggy apomorphies is recognized, though. Recommendations
9E and 9F (at the bottom of http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art9.html) are
meant to deal with this problem. Let's hope they will be followed.
> Clarke et al. define some names-
> Theropoda Marsh 1881 = Branch (Allosaurus fragilis, not Plateosaurus
> engelhardti).
> Why not Megalosaurus bucklandii?! They use Megalosaurus for Dinosauria
and
> Saurischia.
Hm.
> Finally, they give us a new, difficult to apply name-
> Avipluma New = Apomorphy (1st theropod with Vultur gryphus' hollow-based,
> branched, filamentous epidermal appendages [= feathers]).
> Yeah... so that's probably less inclusive than Avetheropoda, perhaps as
> inclusive as the Sinosauropteryx+Vultur node (_currently_ Av[i]filopluma),
and
> definitely as inclusive as Maniraptora. Wow, the utility is astounding
:-|
>
> Mickey Mortimer
> Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
> University of Washington
> The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html
I hope Recommendations 9E and 9F will be followed at length. Otherwise the
name is going to be forgotten.