Message 2004-10-0118: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms

Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:54:06 -0500

[Previous by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:54:06 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms


The problem is that, as heterodefinitional synonyms, one of them MUST=
priority under the current system. The fact that they have different=
definitions is irrelevant: we MUST choose one of them for the name of=
clade, unless they become heterodefinitional NONsynonyms. If Synapsid=
a has=20
priority, panstemmers are unhappy, the rest of us rejoice. If Panmamm=
has prioirty, vice-versa. Either way, folks aren't happy. I gather th=
most of the people contributing to the Big Book, especially on verteb=
are panstemmers. The editors are all panstemmers. I suspect that, at =
in vertebrates, the Panstem names will end up priority, heterodefinit=
or not.

The idea here is to ask folks to allow two names to be applied to a c=
regardless of definition. My suggestion simply facilitates this, but=
agreement in general is vital before moving on to how to implement th=
idea. Honestly, if this weren't such a contentious issue, I wouldn't =
be in=20
favor of such a radical solution myself.


At 06:55 PM 9/17/04, Jaime A. Headden wrote:
>Jon Wagner ( wrote:
><I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. de Queiroz that the issue of allowi=
ng two
>names for a clade MUST be addressed before any rules are considered =
>adopted. This was my gravest concern about the Cannatella proposal. =
>modification of that proposal does nothing to solve this, other than
>removing panstems from the class of "regular taxon names.">
>   As I read it, there are two different clades being referrenced he=
re, not
>one, as Mike Keesey pointed out. The conflict of two names for the s=
>thing doesn't occur, since one can be considered a slightly differen=
>"class" of name than the other, for different purposes ... like how
>stratigraphy pulls its hair out when people mix up the placement of =
>geological column with the temporal relationships within the column,=
>Late with Upper, Early with Lower, etc. They can relate to the same =
>we can talk about the upper Maastrichtian as much as the late
>Maastrichtian, and they may even use the same "specifiers," but they=
>indeed distinct.
>   Synapsida as a pan-stem, and use of the "Pan-Mammalia" name shoul=
d not
>be considered conflicting since while they reference the same clade,=
>do so differently, and as Mike pointed out, their pan-stem "definiti=
>can be modified to fit their actual flavor. The pan-stem definitions=
>have external specifiers of each other major excluded group one choo=
ses to
>recognize, keeping in mind that defining Diapsida as exclusive of tu=
>can be self-destructive of Diapsida's use.
>   Cheers,
>Jaime A. Headden
>   Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to m=
> leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do=
.  We=20
> should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us =
> than zoom by it.
>"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!


Feedback to <> is welcome!