Message 2004-10-0087: Re: The Pancompromise?

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:12:24 -0700

[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
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
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

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!