Message 2004-06-0019: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:13:56 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Fw: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Next by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

David Marjanovic ( wrote:


  Only two nitpicks:

  1. Theropsida over Synapsida when referring to a Pan-stem, or as in
Amphibia over Panlissamphibia, is unlikely. A) Amphibia refers to an
alternate clade and probably applies to temnospondyls and the known
fossil: it is likely a "stem" in the sense of all it's used as, but it
isn't "Panamphibia." One would likely use this, if you use ANY "pan-"
name. B) Theropsida is hardly ever in use, much as Hesperornithes, and has
classically been referred to the node contained BY Synapsida, having a
more historical use. One can easily define the pan-stems and never use a
pan-prefix: Ambibia contains all possible taxa closer to frogs,
salamanders, caecilians, etc., than to mammals, birds, crocs, lizards,
turtles, or snakes; Synapsida is the representative "pan-stem" containing
mammals, but it's sense is unlike that of "mammal" as it has been and
continues, to be used for the sense of gorgonopsidans, dicynodontans,
dinocephalians, non-mammalian cynodontans, and varanopseid "pelycosaurs"
and allies, which defy the idea of "mammal." Mammalia is traditionally
used for the crown, and this should remain so, even so that it excludes
"certain" mammals such as *Zhangeotherium.* Otherwise, a new stem-affixe,
"Corono-" as suggested by Keesey, might be warranted.

  2. "Panpan" sounds ridiculous, and it's possible to name "Panhomo" as
the pan-stem of the clade including *Homo,* as much as "Panpan" is the
pan-stem of the clade containing *Pan.* Sounds dumb, but it can happen.
Expect _species_ pan-stems. Then there's a possible node-based clade for
*Pan* + *Homo* which, under some conventions, would be "Panhomo" or
"Homopan" (see, Galloanseres, Picopasseriformes, Euarchontoglires, etc.):
"Panpanhomo" and "Panhomopan" as suggested are possible. The convention
names every possible interaction between these clades, as I pointed out
using only crown-clades of tetrapods. SOMEONE is going to publish it if
allowed. Who knows, it might catch on. _I_ certainly hope not.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.


Feedback to <> is welcome!