[Previous by date - Re: Intercode homonyms (was Re: Registration)]
[Next by date - RE: Ichthyornis paper]
[Previous by subject - Paleontology [was: Re: Thoughts on the Paris meeting]]
[Next by subject - Paris meeting registration]
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0500
From: "Jonathan R. Wagner" <jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu>
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Panstems
In tandem with Mike Keesey's comments, I would like one or more answers to a lingering question from the (very successful) Paris meeting: In response to Dr. Padian''s suggestion that definitional types be restricted to node- and stem-based classes, Dr. de Queiroz responded (at least twice) that he felt it was inappropriate to impose restrictions on HOW phylogenetic taxa should be defined. Although I believe Dr. Padian's points were valid, and I would be willing to consider his proposal, I also very much respect Dr. de Queiroz's position. However, as evidenced by the vote late in the meeting, several meeting participants, including Dr. de Queiroz, are in favor of restricting WHICH NAMES can be defined (specifically, by supporting the non-binding resolution that symposium volume authors be REQUIRED to follow the "panstem" convention). I understand the arguments for panstem nomenclature, and I am sympathetic. What I do not understand is the justification for upholding scholarly freedom on one issue, then denying it on another. Was this simply an indication that these individuals would PREFER that panstem nomenclature be employed, inflated to the status of a "requirement" only because the vote was non-binding? Or do these individuals actually support moving from a Phylogenetic Nomenclature with very limited rules on which names should be employed to a Phylogenetic Taxonomy, with a rigid system for choosing and employing appropriate names? Jon Wagner