[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=]
[Previous by subject - RE: RE: crown clade convention]
[Next by subject - RE: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:53:21 -0700
From: [unknown]
To: 'David Marjanovic' <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>, 'PML' <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Marjanovic [mailto:david.marjanovic@gmx.at] > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:08 AM > To: PML > Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to = each > other >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <knm5@cornell.edu> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:26 AM >=20 > > > [...] more than half of biology being comprised of those that f= ollow > > > such a system in their nomenclature. > > > > I suspect it's still more than half. >=20 > So do I -- phylogenetic nomenclature is simply unknown in wide circ= les. > For > example, there were no entomologists at the meeting in Paris. Hi all, This supposition is supported by the poll I took of first authors of = 51 papers discussed in detail by Michel Laurin in our recent publication= . One of 21 respondents used the PhyloCode in their research; 9 of 21 had n= ever even heard of it. Most of the remainder had heard of it but not in gr= eat detail or were waiting to see how it developed. Related to the present discussion, while it was alleged earlier in th= is thread that paleontologists are predisposed to supporting the PhyloCo= de, others I polled are some of its strongest opponents. Familiarity with= the PhyloCode bred contempt in these cases. See: Laurin, M. and J. Anderson, 2004. Syst. Biol. 53:68-80. The reason I voted against the Pan convention in Paris was the freedo= m issue, but also the fact that there are many total group definitions = already in wide use in my field of basal tetrapod phylogeny, including by tho= se who are starting to (begrudgingly) adopt key components of the PhyloCode.= Michel specifically argued at the meeting that we might alienate potential "converts" by doing away with names formed using P.N. in favour of th= e aesthetics the Pan convention. Personally, since most life that has e= xisted is now extinct, I think we are giving too much weight to the small percentage of extant organisms in determining how we create names. We= also look indecisive in the literature to say "definition, not diagnosis" = but then "Tetrapodamorpha is well defined, but should now be known as Pantetrapoda". Ultimately, there are not so many total groups that th= e extra information conveyed is really that much of a time saver in learning = the nomenclature of a particular group--and there are still the same numb= er of names to learn. On the other hand, I do understand the argument made by the supporter= s of the Pan convention that there is more information conveyed by its use= . However, I don't think its strong enough justification to rename clad= es that are already in fairly widespread use in the field. In my opinion, it = would be one step forward and two steps back. (Apologies to Paula Abdul) Cheers, Jason Jason S. Anderson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Anatomy College of Veterinary Medicine Western University of Health Sciences 309 E. Second St. Pomona, CA 91766 909-469-5537 FAX 909-469-5635 janderson@westernu.edu