[Previous by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to each other]
[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: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:07:34 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=
----- Original Message -----
=46rom: <knm5@cornell.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:26 AM
> > [...] more than half of biology being comprised of those that fol=
low
> > such a system in their nomenclature.
>
> I suspect it's still more than half.
So do I -- phylogenetic nomenclature is simply unknown in wide circle=
s. For
example, there were no entomologists at the meeting in Paris.
> The PhyloCode seems to appeal to three groups of systematists:
> paleontologists, who genuinely have problems with the Linnean
> naming system; theoreticians who just dislike ranks; and people
> with an unbearable, uncontrollable urge to name *every* *single*
> clade they discover, and once they get past
> infrasubtribes can't think of any more ranks.
I think I should mention that lots of people without the latter urge =
run
into the very same problems. For example, neontologists need to talk =
about
Chordata, Vertebrata, Gnathostomata, Tetrapoda and Amniota, at least =
-- and
all these terms are _much_ older than phylogenetic nomenclature (e. g=
.
Amniota comes from Haeckel... 1866 sounds like a good year). Now Chor=
data is
traditionally a phylum, Vertebrata a subphylum, and Reptilia, Mammali=
a and
Aves are classes. There's room for exactly one superclass between Ver=
tebrata
and Reptilia/Mammalia/Aves (the constituents of Amniota). So we have =
to
choose between using _either_ Gnathostomata _or_ Tetrapoda _or_ Amnio=
ta if
we use the Linnean system. OK, we could introduce the additional pref=
ix
infra- and declare _either_ Gnathostomata _or_ Tetrapoda an infraphyl=
um.
This still _forbids_ us to recognize all three clades.
Oh, and there's Sarcopterygii -- coined as a paraphyletic gro=
up,
unlike the three others, but in widespread use today to include (amon=
g the
living) *Latimeria*, Dipnoi (the lungfish) and Tetrapoda. People need=
to
talk about that, too -- and not "just" paleontologists.
> I haven't seen much outside of vertebrate taxonomy aside
> from that done by the hardcore original PhyloCoders,
This is largely an information problem. I wouldn't be surprised if tw=
o years
ago I would have been one of two Austrians to have ever heard of
phylogenetic nomenclature.
> and I have yet to meet a non-systematist who
> thinks being unable to sort species by exclusive groups (which is t=
o
> say, being unable to know they're exclusive without an intimate
> knowledge of phylogenetics) is a good idea.
Don't forget that taxa with the same Linnean rank are _only_ mutually
exclusive _within one Linnean classification_! One worker's genus is =
another
worker's subgenus is another worker's tribe or subfamily. As an extre=
me
example, the phylum Vestimentifera is identical to _part of_ the fami=
ly
Siboglinidae... I think Subfamily Riftiinae or Ridgeiinae.
I recommend
F. Pleijel & G. W. Rouse: Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and
phylogenetic nomenclature, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research 41, 162 -- 1=
74
(2003)