Message 2004-06-0045: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:52:18 -0700

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:52:18 -0700
From: Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_7rDy3+46d+83Hnda413mGQ)
Content-type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Stephen Pickering wrote-

> 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=20
> oxymoronic.

I never stated IPNM abstract definitions were oxymoronic, just poorly =
thought out or contra Phylocode rules

> 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=20
> dubium.=20

Why is Spinostropheus a nomen dubium?  Name two other taxa that are =
indistinguishable from it.

> Puzzling to me is that living dinosaurs are not subject of papers. =
Bradley Livezey's fascinating=20
> revisions promise to totally change how one looks at the phylogenies =
of extant Theropoda, and I=20
> ask why he is not participating.=20

I am also puzzled by the absence of living avemetatarsalian talks at the =
IPNM meeting.  Were there no experts on living eusaurischians present?!  =
Surely a neo-maniraptoriformologist or two was in the audience?

> Another abstract I seriously question is that of J.R. Wagner re: =
ornithischians. He uses names=20
> which are not valid: Cetiosaurus medius and Ceratops montanus are not =
valid, and never have=20
> been. Cetiosaurus needs to be removed from serious elucidations of =
sauropod systematics.

Unfortunately for you, a taxon doesn't need to be diagnosable in order =
for it to be a valid specifier for a clade in Phylocode.  Ceratops =
montanus is the eponymous taxon for Ceratopsia, so should be used in its =
definition.  Cetiosaurus medius is a more complicated case.  It is not =
what traditional ideas on Cetiosaurus have been based on, and the ICZN =
is being / will be petitioned to make C. oxoniensis the neotype species. =
 Cetiosaurus oxoniensis is valid (Upchurch and Martin, 2003).  However, =
C. medius IS the first named sauropod taxon, and is definitely sauropod, =
so it's fine as a sauropod specifier.
=20
> It remains to be seen what kind of stability will be perpetrated if, =
as Julia Clarke et al. propose,=20
> one adopts the prefix Pan- to crown names. Objections raised to her =
methodology -- again,=20
> stressing one is dealing with an abstract, and not a full-length =
exegesis -- should be muted.=20

Abstracts are representative of future work, so if we are to stop Pan- =
stems, we need to start now before they become valid.

> 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=20
> should be used, not Sereno, and I think Mickey Mortimer should have =
been approached to submit > in absentia a paper to this important =
meeting.

While I do think my analysis is superior to Sereno's, the point of =
Phylocode is to have definitions that are valid under many alternate =
topologies, not to cater to one topology.  As a virtual unknown =
undergraduate in the biological community, it's obvious why I was not =
approached, though if Marjanovic submitted an abstract, I suppose I =
could have as well.  Then again, authors might not be able to provide =
abstracts if they cannot attend.  Needless to say, I lack the funds or =
time to get to Paris.

Mickey Mortimer
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - =
http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html


--Boundary_(ID_7rDy3+46d+83Hnda413mGQ)
Content-type: text/html;	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12">Stephen Pickering =
wrote-</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; I have read and analyzed the IPNM abstracts as =
they pertain=20
to Vertebrata, and agree with Mickey &gt; Mortimer, e.g., that some of =
the names=20
being adopted tentatively for converted clade names are =
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; oxymoronic.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =
BACK=3D"#ffffff">I=20
never stated IPNM abstract definitions were oxymoronic, just poorly =
thought out=20
or contra Phylocode rules</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; One name cannot be used for one clade, then used =
for=20
another, </FONT></FONT><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D3=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" BACK=3D"#ffffff">nor, I should add, =
is it desirable=20
to &gt; erect often undefinable taxa on the basis of bone scrap just to =
have a=20
name. <I>Spinostropheus</I> is a &gt; good example of a nonsensical =
taxon with=20
little, or no, diagnostic validity; it remains a <I>nomen=20
</I></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"><I>&gt; dubium. </I></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">Why is Spinostropheus a nomen dubium?&nbsp; Name two =
other taxa=20
that are indistinguishable from it.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; Puzzling to me is that living dinosaurs are not =
subject of=20
papers. Bradley Livezey's fascinating </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; revisions promise to totally change how one looks =
at the=20
phylogenies of extant Theropoda, and I </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff">&gt; ask why he is not =
participating.&nbsp;</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =

BACK=3D"#ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D0 =
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D"12" =
BACK=3D"#ffffff">I=20
am also puzzled by the absence of living =
avemetatarsalian&nbsp;talks&nbsp;at the=20
IPNM meeting.&nbsp; Were there no experts on living eusaurischians=20
present?!&nbsp; Surely a neo-maniraptoriformologist or two was in the=20
audience?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT>Another abstract I seriously question is =
that of=20
J.R. Wagner re: ornithischians. He uses names </DIV>
<DIV>&gt; which are not valid: <I>Cetiosaurus medius </I>and <I>Ceratops =

montanus </I>are not valid, and never have </DIV>
<DIV>&gt; been. <I>Cetiosaurus </I>needs to be removed from serious =
elucidations=20
of sauropod systematics.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Unfortunately for you, a taxon doesn't need to be =
diagnosable=20
in order for it to be a valid specifier for a clade in Phylocode.&nbsp; =
Ceratops=20
montanus is the eponymous taxon for Ceratopsia, so should be used in its =

definition.&nbsp; Cetiosaurus medius is a more complicated case.&nbsp; =
It is not=20
what traditional ideas on Cetiosaurus have been based on, and the ICZN =
is being=20
/ will be petitioned to make C. oxoniensis the neotype species.&nbsp;=20
Cetiosaurus oxoniensis is valid (Upchurch and Martin, 2003).&nbsp; =
However, C.=20
medius IS the first named sauropod taxon, and is definitely sauropod, so =
it's=20
fine as a sauropod specifier.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;&nbsp;It remains to be seen what kind of stability will be =
perpetrated=20
if, as Julia Clarke et al. propose, </DIV>
<DIV>&gt; one adopts the prefix <I>Pan- </I>to crown names. Objections =
raised to=20
her methodology -- again, </DIV>
<DIV>&gt; stressing one is dealing with an abstract, and not a =
full-length=20
exegesis -- should be muted. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Abstracts are representative of future work, so if =
we are to=20
stop Pan- stems, we need to start now before they become =
valid.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT>Paul Sereno's abstract, while =
interesting,=20
sustains some of the taxonomic problems encountered &gt; in his =
phylogeny=20
papers. The ongoing analyses of Mickey Mortimer re: coelurosaur lineages =
</DIV>
<DIV>&gt; should be used, not Sereno, and I think Mickey Mortimer should =
have=20
been approached to submit <I>&gt; in absentia</I> a paper to this =
important=20
meeting.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>While I do think my analysis is superior to =
Sereno's, the=20
point of Phylocode is to have definitions that are valid under many =
alternate=20
topologies, not to cater to one topology.&nbsp; As a virtual unknown=20
undergraduate in the biological community, it's obvious why I was not=20
approached, though if Marjanovic submitted an abstract, I suppose I =
could have=20
as well.&nbsp; Then again, authors might not be able to provide =
abstracts if=20
they cannot attend.&nbsp; Needless to say, I lack the funds or time to =
get to=20
Paris.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mickey Mortimer<BR>Undergraduate, Earth and Space=20
Sciences<BR>University of Washington<BR>The Theropod Database - <A=20
href=3D"http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html">http://student=
s.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html</A></FONT><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></B=
ODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_7rDy3+46d+83Hnda413mGQ)--

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!