Message 2004-10-0015: RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=

Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:53:21 -0700

[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' <>, 'PML' <>
Subject: RE: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to ea=

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marjanovic []
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:08 AM
> To: PML
> Subject: Re: REPOST: Crowns, Panstems, and their Correspondence to =
> other
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:26 AM
> > > [...] more than half of biology being comprised of those that f=
> > > such a system in their nomenclature.
> >
> > I suspect it's still more than half.
> So do I -- phylogenetic nomenclature is simply unknown in wide circ=
> 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 =
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=
even heard of it. Most of the remainder had heard of it but not in gr=
detail or were waiting to see how it developed.

Related to the present discussion, while it was alleged earlier in th=
thread that paleontologists are predisposed to supporting the PhyloCo=
others I polled are some of its strongest opponents. Familiarity with=
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=
issue, but also the fact that there are many total group definitions =
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.=
specifically argued at the meeting that we might alienate potential
"converts" by doing away with names formed using P.N. in favour of th=
aesthetics the Pan convention. Personally, since most life that has e=
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=
look indecisive in the literature to say "definition, not diagnosis" =
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 =
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 =
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


Feedback to <> is welcome!