Message 2004-10-0007: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=

Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:06:38 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Previous by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by subject - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: [unknown]
To: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
Cc: List PhyloCode <>
Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=

Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) wrote:

<Both approaches seem equally reasonable.  My interpretation:  perhap=
this is a reason for naming the clades bounded by extant organisms in
pairs (see TMK=92s first comment, above), as I have myself suggested =
not clearly distinguishing this issue from the related one about how =
names are to be formed).>

  Would this not result in the same form of excessive taxonomy we are
trying to argue against employed in Linnaean taxonomy? Mandated pairs=
clades, which are essentially identical by content, is excessive.

<The PhyloCode is not necessarily trying to get away from standard
affixes=97only from tying particular affixes to particular ranks.>

  One could say (as above) that this is essentially the same problem.
Linnaean taxonomy would attempt to use the clades named in a hierarch=
setting, and simply apply mandated ranks to each ... it would likely =
inescapable ... there ARE Linnaean taxonomists out there, more than h=
of biology being comprised of those that follow such a system in thei=
nomenclature. Standardized affixes for types of clades is unneccessar=
y ...
if one clade, as Mike and I have said before, why not ALL forms of cl=
Why this ONE form of clade idea? What stops us from actively affixing=
forms of clades for PhyloCode?

<To solve this problem, people have suggested conventions involving
hyphens and/or double capitalization.  Thus, Panthera would not be a
panstem name, but PanThera (or Pan-Thera) as well as PanPanthera (or
Pan-Panthera) would.>

  Why not use diacritics? Using other characters to form names, when
hyphens refer to a combination of two words, would seem less problema=
Capitals within words, rather than at the beginning, ignores nearly a=
methods of naming clades outlined by the PhyloCode.

<That name would have to be redefined so that it applied to the total
clade of Arthropoda (remember, the PhyloCode is not retroactive).>

  Doesn't the Code recommend following use and ideal of the definitio=
n as
originally coined, not redefining based on a later, younger concept o=
f the
addition of pan-? It would seem that applying one's own idea to an ol=
name can be a slap in the face of the researcher, obviating his/their=
of the name, thereby rejecting his taxonomy.

  Say, researcher Grellet-Tinner has a species named for him ... can =
use _grellet-tinneri_ now, and thereby review all previous emmendatio=
made to nomenclature using hyphens? It's possible once, might as well=
. I'd
say, if we WEREN'T out to revise historical taxonomy to conform to ne=
ideas, including old names, then we're coining NEW names, replacing t=
older, used, and historical elements with OUR own ... replacing their=
to satisfy out own ideas. What justice is there in saying that adding
hyphens or revising names or definitions will benefit science when it
screws with the historical record -- especially since the formulators=
in a minority opinion?

<This seems like a minor drawback.>

  This seems to be along the same lines as all the other drawbacks.
Capitalization within the word (or forming combinations of words sepa=
by hyphens) is a big issue, and if this would be the solution, then i=
only compounds a problem taxonomy has attempted to prevent over the y=

<A standard crown prefix is certainly possible.>

  If there are standard affixes, taxonomy takes a step backwards in
preventing free development of words to represent labels of clades. T=
type of clade can be referred to by the nature of the definition, or =
by a
label preceding the name, and used at the first instance of the name =
in a
paper, thereby giving a reference for subsequent useage.


Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to mak=
ing 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 arou=
nd us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!


Feedback to <> is welcome!