Message 2004-10-0021: Re: Panstems

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:05:50 -0400

[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]
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=
 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=
associated with other clades.  Thus, the names could be defined as =
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=
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.

11 Sep 2004

>>> "Jaime A. Headden" <> - 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=
rule.  On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have a stan=
affix for names associated with every type of definition (node, branc=
apomoprhy, crown, stem, etc.).>

  I have yet to hear a response to what I would think are valid criti=
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=
but not any other form of clade? If one, why NOT the others? I have s=
NO argument that has argued why we should have a stem affix for a sin=
clade, ignoring the utility of the others. This is not an argument FO=
further affixes, but a curiousity about why it is even trying to be
required for ONE type of clade only.


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)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!


Feedback to <> is welcome!