[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Re: In case anyone was wondering]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:53:05 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: Philip Cantino <cantino@ohiou.edu>
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=
And here was my response to that posting, with some extraneous stuff = left out: > More importantly, I don't think this rule is needed. The panstems= of > Plantae and Angiospermae are different clades and the names > Pan-plantae and Pan-angiospermae therefore are not in competition. I think I goofed on the example. Let me try to include a better examp= le in the re-write, and that might make it more clear. Basically, though, this = is to cover the case of Corono-synapsida vs. Corono-mammaliaformes... both = names refer to the same clade (crown mammals), and we need a reason to pick= one. > More generally, would not the panstems of any two crown clades tha= t > differ in inclusiveness always be different clades and therefore n= eed > different names? The panstems should be, because the panstem definition I envision= =20 restricts Pan- to crown clades. However, imagine the autonymous affix= Holo-, which is like Pan-, but does not require the base clade to be a crown= clade. Holo-theria would =3D Holo-Marsupiala would =3D Holo-dicynodon. We ha= ve to choose one. Sorry for the vertebro-centric examples. I'll try to use more pl= ants. Thanks for the comments! Jon