[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:57:07 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
Here's the passage from the earlier version of the PhyloCode preface = that =3D I was talking about, which Phil kindly provided: "The starting date of the PhyloCode has not yet been determined and i= s=3D20 cited as 1 January 200n in the draft code. Names that were provided= =3D20 with published phylogenetic definitions before that date are not=3D20 considered to be established under the PhyloCode. The starting date= =3D20 will be scheduled to coincide with the publication of a companion= =3D20 volume that will provide phylogenetic definitions for many widely= =3D20 used clade names. This volume will also provide an opportunity for= =3D20 the authors of names that were given phylogenetic definitions before= =3D20 the starting date to republish them in accordance with the PhyloCode= =3D20 and thereby establish their nomenclatural precedence. The delayed= =3D20 starting date will provide the time needed to prepare the companion= =3D20 volume and establish a registration system. It will also permit=3D20 sufficient time for experimentation with the PhyloCode with no=3D20 permanent nomenclatural consequences. Some changes in the code will= =3D20 no doubt result. It is hoped that many people will avail themselves= =3D20 of this opportunity to explore the ramifications of phylogenetic=3D20 nomenclature in the taxa with which they are familiar." Kevin de Queiroz Division of Amphibians & Reptiles Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012 NHB, Room W203, MRC 162 Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 Voice: 202.633.0727 FAX: 202.357.3043 E-mail: dequeirk@si.edu >>> Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> - 9/11/04 6:40 PM >>= > Kevin de Queiroz wrote- > The problem with using standard affixes for ALL of the different cl= asses of names is that this practice > would result in the disruption of continuity for many, many names. = In =3D the case of total clades, one could > argue that most names that have been associated with these clades h= ave 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 the total clades, without eliminating any widely known nam= es. For example, the name Synapsida > could be associated with the clade stemming from the species in whi= ch =3D the synapsid apomorphy originated, > and PanMammalia could used for the t= otal group (which includes Synapsida) of Mammalia (used for the > crown). Thus, both preexisting names (Synapsida and Mammalia) are retained. However, if ALL of the > different types of clades are given names with standard affixes (e.= g., PanMammalia, ApoSynapsida, > ApoMammalia, AcroMammalia), then many preexisting names (e.g., Syna= psida,=3D Mammalia) won't be used > for any clades, let alone for the clades to which they have traditi= onally=3D referred. This disrupts > stability/continuity and thus goes against one of the fundamental principles of the PhyloCode. Pan-stems already disrupt continuity for many names, as most total cl= ades whose surrounding topologies are well known have been named already. Here are some total clade names that come to mind- Amphibia =3D3D Panlissamphibia. Salientia =3D3D Pananura. Urodela =3D3D Pancaudata. Reptiliomorpha =3D3D Panamniota. Synapsida =3D3D Panmammalia. Metatheria =3D3D Panmarsupalia. Eutheria =3D3D Panplacentalia. Sauropsida =3D3D Panreptilia. Anapsida =3D3D Pantestudines. Romeriida =3D3D Pansauria. Lepidosauromorpha =3D3D Panlepidosauria. Archosauromorpha =3D3D Panarchosauria. Avemetatarsalia =3D3D Panaves. Many of these names are very commonly used. Changing them all would = be quite disruptive. In addition, basically every 'family' or 'order'-level clade with liv= ing representatives is understood to include some taxa basal to the crown version of that clade. So taxa directly basal to crown galliformes a= re placed in Galliformes too (e.g. Paraortygoides in Dyke and Van Tuinen= , 2004). Yet you would have us redefine Galliformes to be a crown clad= e, =3D and make Paraortygoides a non-galliform pangalliform. It's the same with Diacodexis and Artiodactyla, Basilosaurus and Cetacea, etc.. Have existing total clade names been associated with more alternate definitions than other kinds of clade names? I don't think so. The = most controversial clade names (Aves, Tetrapoda, Mammalia) are either crow= n or non-crown node-based clades. If you really want to introduce a stand= ardize=3D d affix, crown clades have the least names associated with them. But I= =3D agree with Jaime that recommending affixes for only one type of definition = is nonsensical. Perhaps a better recommendation would be to keep existi= ng names the same, but if you want to name a crown or total clade equiva= lent =3D to an existing clade, use the pan- or acro- affixes. This would cut dow= n on memorizing new clade names AND avoid disruptive renaming. Mickey Mortimer Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.= html