Message 2004-06-0035: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:42:34 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[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: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:42:34 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PML <>
Cc: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <>
Subject: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 4:13 AM

>   1. Theropsida over Synapsida when referring to a Pan-stem, or as in
> Amphibia over Panlissamphibia, is unlikely.

How do you mean, "unlikely"? Theropsida was specifically invented in 1930
for what would today be called the node-stem triplet
*Amniota*-*Theropsida*-*Sauropsida*. It is the one logical candidate for the
name of "*Panmammalia*" and even has some limited use in at least the
secondary, tertiary and popular literature.

> 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.

If you read the entire abstract volume, you have found that Amphibia is
defined there twice in two different ways.

> 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.

You have confused Theropsida and Therapsida. Theropsida contains (or is
synonymous with) Synapsida, and both contain Therapsida.

> varanopseid "pelycosaurs"

Have seemingly been emended to Varanopidae.

> Mammalia is traditionally used for the crown,

Pardon? Traditionally it's used for a bigger group. The idea of restricting
it to the crown-group comes from 1988 and has only very recently caught on.

> even so that it excludes "certain" mammals such as *Zhangeotherium.*

*Zhangheotherium* (named after a certain Zhang He) is far inside. It's a
spalacotheriid ( = Real True Symmetrodont).

> Otherwise, a new stem-affixe,
> "Corono-" as suggested by Keesey, might be warranted.

If, then rather Neo-.

> 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.):

This is why I prefer the name Supraprimates instead of Euarchontoglires,
coined (but _likewise_ not defined) in

Peter J. Waddell, Hirohisa Kishino, Rissa Ota: A Phylogenetic Foundation for
Comparative Mammalian Genomics, Genome Informatics 12, 141 -- 154 (December


Feedback to <> is welcome!