[Previous by date - New Scientist article on the Phylocode]
[Next by date - Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:20:49 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Panstems
----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:10 PM > Kevin de Queiroz wrote- > > > This is true in the sense that some non-Pan names have already be= en > defined as referring to total clades; > > Indeed, have any major total clades of vertebrates NOT > been defined already by non-Pan names? In the least resolved areas (base of Gnathostomata...), we might find= a few. But not many. Here are a few counterexamples off the top of my head: Crown Panstem *Latimeria* Actinistia =3D Coelacanthida? *Polypterus* Cladistia Dipnoi? Dipnomorpha (sister of Tetrapodomorpha) *Sphenodon* Rhynchocephalia =3D Sphenodontida Oh, and outside Vertebrata: *Ginkgo biloba* Ginkgo...phyta or whatever ending you prefer > Aves 1758 < Avemetatarsalia 1999. 241 (Perhaps I should mention that synonyms for Avemetatarsalia, like the misnomer Ornithosuchia, come from the early 90s if not late 80s. Does= n't change much about the point, however.) > Which names have been > associated with more clades than Mammalia, Reptilia and Aves? Reptilia has only been associated with one clade, AFAIK, but the othe= rs have been attached to basically everything from panstem to crown. (Haven't= there even been attempts to exclude the monotremes from Mammalia?) > Amphibia, a total clade, is aguably one of the ten most well known = clade > names, being one of Linnaeus' original vertebrate classes everyone = learns in > school and possessing a commonly used vernacular equivalent. Yes. Few people know how to tell a "reptile" from an amphibian, but e= veryone knows both exist. > If you argue "we could just redefine total clade names to equate to= other, > more or less similar, clades", as in your Synapsida example, why no= t do that > for crown clades instead*? Sure, more people know more crown clade > names, but they don't know they ARE crown clades and in most cases > don't even know what a crown clade is. I should have thought of this much, much earlier. > I honestly never saw this as a problem. Our language is such that = it can be > assumed one means "the members of group X that can be examined for = this > trait have it" whenever one says "members of group X have this trai= t". And > since neontologists talk about recent 'orders', 'families' and 'gen= era' a > LOT, to solve this "problem" would require that huge disruption in > continuity of composition I mentioned earlier. Is it worth it to h= ave > thousands of taxa removed from clades they've always been included = in, just > to ensure people who are ignorant don't think genetic or behavioral= traits > are known to be present in extinct stem lineages of crown clades? Uhmm... strong words... but from my paleo-biased perspective I think = they fit quite well. :-)