[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: david.marjanovic@gmx.at, mickey_mortimer111@msn.com
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
Mickey Mortimer (mickey_mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:
<<Rhynchocephalia Guenther 1867 = Apomorphy (1st lepidosaur with Sphenodon
punctatus' premaxillary chisels).>>
Actually, this is ambiguous. The shape of the crowns in *Scaphonyx,* for
example, are unlike those of the tuatara, as also in *Mesosaurus.* In this
case, we are referring to a distal, apical shear point without mesiodistal
carinae (1st character), rotation of the crown with respect to the
maxillopalatal/mandibular dentition (2nd character) [combination of the
1st and 2nd forming "chisel" anatomy], fusion of the dentition to the bone
(3rd character), and reduction of premaxillary dentition to at least ONE
marginal crown (4th character). Hence, this is an "apomorphic suite"
rather than "an apomorphy."
<<Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci 1990 = Apomorphy (1st archosaur with
Caiman crocodilus' fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal
crurotarsal articulation).>>
*Caiman* does not signify the internal nodes, which are based on the
younger named but precedent bearing nomenclature of *Crocodilus.* This is
also why the most common used specifier, and not Linné's use, should be
used. The common use of specifying ourselves as the mammal anchor, or
*Passer* as the avian anchor, should continue with others. Linné's use of
the nomenclature was sadly a LOT different than the use the names coined e
enjoy today. (Especially when over a quarter of his names enjoy a rather
_sexual_ application.)
Thus, in my opinion, *Crocodilus niloticus* should be the anchor, as the
type species of *Crocodilus* and the type "genus" of the including clades
Crocodylidae, Crocodyloidea, Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, etc. Hell,
use "Crocodilida." Similarly, the definition resolves a completion of a
series of changes, as in the rhynchocephalian apomorphy. Actual respect to
why the element is referred to as "cross-ankle" should be used, rather
than the morphological qualities of bone interacting proximal tarsals and
their relationship with the metatarsus and tibiofibular complex (at least
10 characters here).
David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:
<Should better retain its original stem-based definition. Ah, this will be
replaced with *Pancrocodylia*...>
I should hope that Crurotarsi is not replaced by "Pancrocodylia," if the
latter is ever named. The latter is misused and ugly, and Crurotarsi names
a different kind of clade.
Mickey again:
<< Reptilia Laurentus 1768 = Crown (Chelonia mydas + Sphenodon punctatus +
Draco volans + Caiman crocodilus + Vultur gryphus).>>
*Draco*? *Lacerta.* It's called Lacertilia for a reason, not "Dracia."
*Chelonia*? *Testudo.* It's called Testudines (or Testudinata, take your
pick) for a reason. Chelonida has been used as a slightly different clade,
but almost interchangeably. Depends on the accepted main specifier.
David:
<I'd like a solution similar to *Sauropoda* -- *Eusauropoda* --
*Neosauropoda*, *Theropoda* -- "Eutheropoda" -- *Neotheropoda* and *Aves*
-- *Euornithes* -- *Neornithes*.>
There is no "Ornithes" ... well, unless Olshevsky gets to name his
pan-stem for birds ... it will include all dinosaurs and would mean,
essentially, "birds." There IS a Neoaves, but no Euaves.
Mickey:
<< Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri +
Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).>>
I wonder if we should be using *Archosaurus rossicus*? I know the name
was coined post-Archosauria. Gauthier/deQuieroz/etal., guys should note
the recommendation that the specifier for a clade, if named AFTER a taxon,
should include that taxon. *Rhynchosaurus* should not be used, rather
*Sphenodon,* since Rhynchocephalia was named to include IT, and it is not
eponymous to *Rhynchosaurus.* That name should be used as the first
internal anchor to Rhynchosauria, though, a subclade of Rhynchocephalia.
David:
<Perhaps just to be really certain, so that the BANDits can't complain?>
Archosauria should only be anchored on living taxa, likely as a crown,
as was and has been used since. Let cladistics and the fact that dinosaurs
would be derived in everyone's scientifically derived phylogeny as a
descedant of the common ancestor of birds and crocs. Since birds derive
from within dinosaurs, this will be hard to avoid. They can complain no
matter what. The BANDits already dislike definitions and PhyloCode.
<Currently a heterodefinitional synonym of the apomorphy-based one. Could
stay so.>
Indeed. Diapsida = ("separation of the quadratojugal, jugal,
postorbital, and squamosal around a fenestra separate from the 'temporal'
fenestra" in *Lacerta agilis*). Of course, this is also probably a
transformational suite for which the series is not well documented. Might
separate ambiguous diapsids. The case seems to be wishy-washy for
Ichthyopterygia.
Mickey:
<<Neornithes finally gets an official definition, from Sereno- Neornithes:
Crown Clade (Passer domesticus not Crocodylus niloticus)>>
Wow. The fossil lineage of neornitheans.... Aves should be used for the
crown, and Neornithes the internal node for Palaeognathae + Neognathae (AS
USED). Good lord. People want *Archaeopteryx* as a member of Aves too bad.
<<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)>>
Good lord, I know it's not the best specimen in the world, but why not
*Hadrosaurus foulkii* or *Nodosaurus textilis*? If you aren't going to use
the nominative taxa, at LEAST coin new nomenclature. Panoplosauridae and
Parasaurolophidae!! Naw....
<<And isn't the type species of Stegosaurus S. armatus? Why does he use
S. stenops? Wagner knows to use S. armatus.>>
Well, NO one should be using *S. armatus* since right now its mostly
inside a mudstone block and half-prepared and has NEVER been described in
detail or in use of comparative study. I would prefer resetting the type
to *S. stenops,* but that may not be wise.
<<Interestingly, Neornithischia seems to be the marginocephalian stem-
Neornithischia: Clade (Triceratops horridus not Ankylosaurus magniventris,
Stegosaurus stenops and Parasaurolophus walkeri)>>
I know Pete Buchholz doesn't like his paper and how it was published,
but his "Chasmatopia" has been defined as the most inclusive stem for this
clade. Looks like a typo. Neornithischia is also being used despite
earlier use of Cerapoda [more elegant name, even] for the same clade
Sereno originally used it for. I say fight for Cerapoda.
<<And Sereno's always right, of course, so let's define Heterodontosaurus
to be an ornithopod!
Ornithopoda: Clade (Heterodontosaurus tucki and Parasaurolophus
walkeri)>>
Ick. BIG ick. ICK. There....
If *H. tucki* is closer to marginocephalians than ornithopods, then
Ornithopoda becomes a senior heterodefinitional synonym (as currently
recognized) for both Cerapoda and Neornithischia. Double ick ... ICK ICK.
Cheers,
=====
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 - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail