[Previous by date - First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting [amniote vertebrate clades]]
[Next by date - Re: Yet one more proposal for a shorthand notation, and for an addition to Rec. 11A]
[Previous by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:13:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: StephanPickering@cs.com
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
--Boundary_(ID_x2M5yA0WyffjAhqI9wIKdQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
One should remember -- and "Qilongia" has made it a point of
displaying cunctatious mind-sets (serious ideas he never iterates because, frankly,
they do not occur to him, and I fail to see his contributions of turgidity as
helping phylogenetic systematics) --one is dealing with abstracts of
ideas-in-formation. I have read and analyzed the IPNM abstracts as they pertain to
Vertebrata, and agree with Mickey Mortimer, e.g., that some of the names being
adopted tentatively for converted clade names are oxymoronic. The goal of
phylogenetic systematics is to achieve clarity and conciseness in elucidating
interrelationships of taxa, to obviate ambiguity. One name cannot be used for one clade,
then used for another, nor, I should add, is it desirable to erect often
undefinable taxa on the basis of bone scrap just to have a name. Spinostropheus is
a good example of a nonsensical taxon with little, or no, diagnostic
validity; it remains a nomen dubium. Another area in serious need of total revision
is, of course, Pterosauria, with a rigorous template of character templates to
be used to clarify, where possible, relationships, aerodynamic abilities, etc.
Kevin Padian's abstract illustrates the issues succinctly. Phylogenetic
systems is not served, indeed, by what I would label as, to be as tactful as
possible, the pseudointellectual resupination of an individual who, sitting before
computer monitors: has no access to any pterosaur specimens, but uses printed
photographs to adjust contrasts...in the process insisting he sees babies; or
that a pterosaur egg is not an egg, but, in effect, a bowl for a pterosaur to
slurp from; accuses those who, having the specimens before them in a
laboratory, are refusing to admit what he, thousands of miles away, "knows" is
present...well, the list could be elongated. This is crackpot pseudoscience of the
worst kind, a kind of phrenetic Qilongianism, and should never be allowed to cloud
the serious issues taxonomists face.
Puzzling to me is that living dinosaurs are not subject of papers.
Bradley Livezey's fascinating revisions promise to totally change how one looks
at the phylogenies of extant Theropoda, and I ask why he is not participating.
Another abstract I seriously question is that of J.R. Wagner re:
ornithischians. He uses names which are not valid: Cetiosaurus medius and Ceratops
montanus are not valid, and never have been. Cetiosaurus needs to be removed
from serious elucidations of sauropod systematics. His abstract is overly
broad, and lacks the rigorous explications of ornithischian phylogenetics needed.
It remains to be seen what kind of stability will be perpetrated if,
as Julia Clarke et al. propose, one adopts the prefix Pan- to crown names.
Objections raised to her methodology -- again, stressing one is dealing with an
abstract, and not a full-length exegesis -- should be muted.
Paul Sereno's abstract, while interesting, sustains some of the
taxonomic problems encountered in his phylogeny papers. The ongoing analyses of
Mickey Mortimer re: coelurosaur lineages should be used, not Sereno, and I think
Mickey Mortimer should have been approached to submit in absentia a paper to
this important meeting. Apomorphy-derived definitions, as Jacques Gauthier has
emphasized, must, whenever possible, reflect the apomorphies of the clade(s) in
question; and, while much work needs to be done, one should not conflate
"node" and "stem" as meaning the same thing.
I, for one, am amazed, e.g., at the ferocity of the attacks against
the PhyloCode which, in 2003, appeared in The Botanical Review, and, while this
is not the place for refutations, I would note that observations of
morpho-functional complexes should, when presented for scholarly discussion, be grounded
in systematics. Granted that comparative and experimental methodologies may
not always be in total synchronization, it is possible (because
feathered/winged dinosaurs still exist) to infer possible ecomorphological and competitive
niche-partitioning processes of pre-K/T dinosaurs. It remains to be determined
if fossils can provide, e.g., a reflexion of ceratopsian social dynamics and
sexual dimorphism. I think they can, and this enriches rather than obviates
appreciation of phylogenetic systematics, and the intertwining of function and
structures not always ascertainable when pondering a new phylogenetic tree of,
say, ornithischians. One would hope that, at levels of integration of
synapomorphies and apomorphies, organisationality of relationships are more clear. Why?
Simply, because I think it possible that behavioural systems can be inferred
from large samples of taxa (late Cretaceous/early Cenozoic winged theropod
systematics has been marred, for over a century, by a plethora of names -- cf.
Brodkorb's catalogues, e.g. -- for (s)crap which have done nothing but clutter
the landscape). It is not only the tempo of evolution the PhyloCode reflects,
but, as well, the mechanisms of change within clades (after all, having
plagiarized Alfred Russel Wallace's key 1855/1858 key concepts, Darwin in 1859 never
did answer where/how species originate).
In a way, looking back to the late 1960s, when John Ostrom first began
exploring the areas Percy Lowe at BMNH had asked about re: winged/feathered
dinosaurs, the PhyloCode promises to be the long-needed revision of taxonomy.
Meanings are being modified. Rather than looking at a clade as an "ancestor",
perhaps it would be wise to interpret the clade as a "witness" to combinations
of variable evolutive states and characters.
STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
The Dinosaur Fractals Project
2333 Portola Drive # 4
Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
stephanpickering@cs.com
website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERING at their
Reference Base
--Boundary_(ID_x2M5yA0WyffjAhqI9wIKdQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SAN=
SSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> One should=
remember -- and "Qilongia" has made it a point of displaying cunctatious mi=
nd-sets (serious ideas he never iterates because, frankly, they do not occur=
to him, and I fail to see his contributions of turgidity as helping phyloge=
netic systematics)</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"=
BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> --</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" st=
yle=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"=20=
FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">one</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff=
" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSER=
IF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffff=
ff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3 PTSIZE=3D12 FAMILY=3D"SANSS=
ERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">is dealing with abstracts of ideas-in-format=
ion. I have read and analyzed the IPNM abstracts as they pertain to Vertebra=
ta, and agree with Mickey Mortimer, e.g., that some of the names being adopt=
ed tentatively for converted clade names are oxymoronic. The goal of phyloge=
netic systematics is to achieve clarity and conciseness in elucidating inter=
relationships of taxa, to obviate ambiguity. One name cannot be used for one=
clade, then used for another, nor, I should add, is it desirable to erect o=
ften undefinable taxa on the basis of bone scrap just to have a name. <I>Spi=
nostropheus</I> is a good example of a nonsensical taxon with little, or no,=
diagnostic validity; it remains a <I>nomen dubium. </I>Another area in seri=
ous need of total revision is, of course, Pterosauria, with a rigorous templ=
ate of character templates to be used to clarify, where possible, relationsh=
ips, aerodynamic abilities, etc. Kevin Padian's abstract illustrates the iss=
ues succinctly. Phylogenetic systems is not served, indeed, by what I would=20=
label as, to be as tactful as possible, the pseudointellectual resupination=20=
of an individual who, sitting before computer monitors: has no access to any=
pterosaur specimens, but uses printed photographs to adjust contrasts=
...in the process insisting he sees babies; or that a pterosaur egg is not a=
n egg, but, in effect, a bowl for a pterosaur to slurp from; accuses those w=
ho, having the specimens before them in a laboratory, are refusing to admit=20=
what he, thousands of miles away, "knows" is present...well, the list could=20=
be elongated. This is crackpot pseudoscience of the worst kind, a kind of ph=
renetic Qilongianism, and should never be allowed to cloud the serious issue=
s taxonomists face.
<BR> Puzzling to me is that living dinos=
aurs are not subject of papers. Bradley Livezey's fascinating revisions prom=
ise to totally change how one looks at the phylogenies of extant Theropoda,=20=
and I ask why he is not participating.
<BR> Another abstract I seriously questi=
on is that of J.R. Wagner re: ornithischians. He uses names which are not va=
lid: <I>Cetiosaurus medius </I>and <I>Ceratops montanus </I>are not valid, a=
nd never have been. <I>Cetiosaurus </I>needs to be removed from serious eluc=
idations of sauropod systematics. His abstract is overly broad, and lacks th=
e rigorous explications of ornithischian phylogenetics needed.
<BR> It remains to be seen what kind of=20=
stability will be perpetrated if, as Julia Clarke et al. propose, one adopts=
the prefix <I>Pan- </I>to crown names. Objections raised to her methodology=
-- again, stressing one is dealing with an abstract, and not a full-length=20=
exegesis -- should be muted.
<BR> Paul Sereno's abstract, while inter=
esting, sustains some of the taxonomic problems encountered in his phylogeny=
papers. The ongoing analyses of Mickey Mortimer re: coelurosaur lineages sh=
ould be used, not Sereno, and I think Mickey Mortimer should have been appro=
ached to submit <I>in absentia</I> a paper to this important meeting. Apomor=
phy-derived definitions, as Jacques Gauthier has emphasized, must, whenever=20=
possible, reflect the apomorphies of the clade(s) in question; and, while mu=
ch work needs to be done, one should not conflate "node" and "stem" as meani=
ng the same thing.
<BR> I, for one, am amazed, e.g., at the=
ferocity of the attacks against the <I>PhyloCode</I> which, in 2003, appear=
ed in <I>The Botanical Review</I>, and, while this is not the place for refu=
tations, I would note that observations of morpho-functional complexes shoul=
d, when presented for scholarly discussion, be grounded in systematics. Gran=
ted that comparative and experimental methodologies may not always be in tot=
al synchronization, it is possible (because feathered/winged dinosaurs still=
exist) to infer possible ecomorphological and competitive niche-partitionin=
g processes of pre-K/T dinosaurs. It remains to be determined if fossils can=
provide, e.g., a reflexion of ceratopsian social dynamics and sexual dimorp=
hism. I think they can, and this enriches rather than obviates appreciation=20=
of phylogenetic systematics, and the intertwining of function and structures=
not always ascertainable when pondering a new phylogenetic tree of, say, or=
nithischians. One would hope that, at levels of integration of synapomorphie=
s and apomorphies, organisationality of relationships are more clear. Why? S=
imply, because I think it possible that behavioural systems can be inferred=20=
from large samples of taxa (late Cretaceous/early Cenozoic winged theropod s=
ystematics has been marred, for over a century, by a plethora of names -- cf=
. Brodkorb's catalogues, e.g. -- for (s)crap which have done nothing but clu=
tter the landscape). It is not only the tempo of evolution the PhyloCode ref=
lects, but, as well, the mechanisms of change within clades (after all, havi=
ng plagiarized Alfred Russel Wallace's key 1855/1858 key concepts, Darwin in=
1859 never did answer where/how species originate).
<BR> In a way, looking back to the late=20=
1960s, when John Ostrom first began exploring the areas Percy Lowe at BMNH h=
ad asked about re: winged/feathered dinosaurs, the PhyloCode promises to be=20=
the long-needed revision of taxonomy. Meanings are being modified. Rather th=
an looking at a clade as an "ancestor", perhaps it would be wise to interpre=
t the clade as a "witness" to combinations of variable evolutive states and=20=
characters.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGRO=
UND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial"=
LANG=3D"0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" BACK=3D"#ffffff" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COL=
OR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D1 PTSIZE=3D8 FAMILY=3D"SERIF" FACE=3D"Georgia" LANG=3D"0=
"><B>STEPHAN PICKERING / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham
<BR>The Dinosaur Fractals Project
<BR>2333 Portola Drive # 4
<BR>Santa Cruz, California 95062-4250 USA
<BR>stephanpickering@cs.com
<BR>website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_bio_dinosaur_ontology
<BR>theropod research summarized: <www.dinodata.net> see under PICKERI=
NG at their Reference Base</B></FONT></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_x2M5yA0WyffjAhqI9wIKdQ)--