[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:05:50 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
The problem with using standard affixes for ALL of the different clas= ses =3D of names is that this practice would result in the disruption of cont= inuity=3D for many, many names. In the case of total clades, one could argue = that =3D most names that have been associated with these clades have also been= =3D associated with other clades. Thus, the names could be defined as = =3D referring to the other clades, and the Pan- names could be used for t= he =3D total clades, without eliminating any widely known names. For exampl= e, =3D the name Synapsida could be associated with the clade stemming from t= he =3D species in which the synapsid apomorphy originated, and PanMammalia c= ould =3D used for the total group (which includes Synapsida) of Mammalia (used= for =3D the crown). Thus, both preexisting names (Synapsida and Mammalia) ar= e =3D retained. However, if ALL of the different types of clades are given= =3D names with standard affixes (e.g., PanMammalia, ApoSynapsida, ApoMamm= alia, =3D AcroMammalia), then many preexisting names (e.g., Synapsida, Mammalia= ) =3D won't be used for any clades, let alone for the clades to which they = have =3D traditionally referred. This disrupts stability/continuity and thus = goes =3D against one of the fundamental principles of the PhyloCode. Kevin 11 Sep 2004 >>> "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> - 9/11/04 4:16 PM >>> Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) wrote: <Agreed. That's why I voted for adopting the Pan- convention as a ge= neral rule. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have a stan= dard affix for names associated with every type of definition (node, branc= h, apomoprhy, crown, stem, etc.).> I have yet to hear a response to what I would think are valid criti= ques of this ideology. If pan-stems get affixes, why not other clades? Wha= t is the philosophy that would even come close to becoming a mandate for taxonomy in the Phylocode that requires panstems to have Pan- prefixe= s, but not any other form of clade? If one, why NOT the others? I have s= een NO argument that has argued why we should have a stem affix for a sin= gle clade, ignoring the utility of the others. This is not an argument FO= R further affixes, but a curiousity about why it is even trying to be required for ONE type of clade only. Cheers, =3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to mak= ing =3D leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. = We =3D should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us ra= ther =3D than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) =09=3D09 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail