[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: In case anyone was wondering]
[Previous by subject - Re: The Pancompromise?]
[Next by subject - Re: The Pancompromise?]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:12:24 -0700
Subject: Re: The Pancompromise?
David Marjanovic wrote- > Most people could, I think, probably live with a recommendation tha= t looked > like my attempt below. I understand that the risk is high that both= sides of > the debate will not like it. My main problem is that it treats Pan-stems as somehow more deserving= of specialized affixes than other kinds of clades, a point which has bee= n raised on this list multiple times. I have yet to see a defense of d= e Queiroz's reasons for this (total clade names are supposedly older; t= otal clade names have supposedly been associated with more clades; it's supposedly important to keep names known to laymen defined as they ar= e now). Add the recommendation for an Acro-crown when a preexisting name is ambiguous or only associated with a total group, and it would be tole= rable. This assumes the "one preexisting name is available that has, with va= rying degrees of explicitness, been applied to both clades, or only to the crown-group" part is actually followed. If we end up with more situa= tions like the current attempt to define Galliformes as a crown clade, desp= ite the historic inclusion of stem members, it would result in a massive disr= uption in continuity of hypothesized composition for almost every extant ord= er, family and genus known from decent fossil remains. Mickey Mortimer Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.= html