[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" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
Jaime, The problem is that, as heterodefinitional synonyms, one of them MUST= have=20 priority under the current system. The fact that they have different= =20 definitions is irrelevant: we MUST choose one of them for the name of= the=20 clade, unless they become heterodefinitional NONsynonyms. If Synapsid= a has=20 priority, panstemmers are unhappy, the rest of us rejoice. If Panmamm= alia=20 has prioirty, vice-versa. Either way, folks aren't happy. I gather th= at=20 most of the people contributing to the Big Book, especially on verteb= rates,=20 are panstemmers. The editors are all panstemmers. I suspect that, at = least=20 in vertebrates, the Panstem names will end up priority, heterodefinit= ional=20 or not. The idea here is to ask folks to allow two names to be applied to a c= lade,=20 regardless of definition. My suggestion simply facilitates this, but= =20 agreement in general is vital before moving on to how to implement th= e=20 idea. Honestly, if this weren't such a contentious issue, I wouldn't = be in=20 favor of such a radical solution myself. Jon At 06:55 PM 9/17/04, Jaime A. Headden wrote: >Jon Wagner (jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu) 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 = or >adopted. This was my gravest concern about the Cannatella proposal. = My >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= ame >thing doesn't occur, since one can be considered a slightly differen= t >"class" of name than the other, for different purposes ... like how >stratigraphy pulls its hair out when people mix up the placement of = the >geological column with the temporal relationships within the column,= i.e., >Late with Upper, Early with Lower, etc. They can relate to the same = area, >we can talk about the upper Maastrichtian as much as the late >Maastrichtian, and they may even use the same "specifiers," but they= are >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,= they >do so differently, and as Mike pointed out, their pan-stem "definiti= ons" >can be modified to fit their actual flavor. The pan-stem definitions= can >have external specifiers of each other major excluded group one choo= ses to >recognize, keeping in mind that defining Diapsida as exclusive of tu= rtles >can be self-destructive of Diapsida's use. > > Cheers, > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >Jaime A. Headden > > Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to m= aking=20 > 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 = rather=20 > than zoom by it. > >"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) > > > >_______________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! >http://vote.yahoo.com