[Previous by date - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by date - Re: RE: crown clade convention]
[Previous by subject - second ISPN meeting June 29 - July 2, 2006]
[Next by subject - short paper in American Scientist]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:11:40 +0200
To: PML <email@example.com>
Subject: short combined answer
----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Philip Cantino" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:56 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: use of vernacular names > >We'll see if "mice" will be applied to Myodonta, Muroidea, > >Muridae, Murinae or *Mus*, we'll see if "birds" will be applied > >to Aves, Avialae, Pygostylia, Avipinna, Maniraptora or whatever I made a mistake in my thinking here. If Aves will be applied to the crown-group, it will be quite far apart (by the number of internodes)= from the cluster of the others, and we would have all the confusion severa= l people have now warned about with the tetrapod example; this is becau= se "aves" means "birds", systematists know this, and even more people ar= e used to calling "birds" Aves. > The name that led me into this line of thinking was "seed plants". > In Paris, Michael Donoghue and I defined Spermatophyta as applying = to > the crown clade of seed plants, but it is often used for the total > clade. As I anticipate the likely negative reaction of some of my > colleagues to our proposal, my hope is that they will not object so > strongly if Pan-Spermatophytes such as the Paleozoic seed ferns can > still be referred to as "seed plants". If we want to introduce > greater precision into their use of the vernacular name, we can use > the terms crown seed plants and stem seed plants, but both are seed > plants. Except that some stem seed plants lack seeds and will therefore likel= y not be called seed plants. This is exacerbated by the fact that Spermatop= hyta literally means "seed plants", which systematists know. But we will see how well the prefix "stem " will be accepted = in the systematic community. What I just wrote above might therefore not mat= ter. I just have to add that I can't quite imagine how to translate this pre= fix into German. Stammsamenpflanzen? Seed plants with a tree trunk? Hm. := -/ Worse yet, it has already been in use for a different concept, that o= f rhizome taxa. In German as well, "Cotylosauria" were the "stem reptil= es", th e multiply paraphyletic assemblage of basal amniotes from which synap= sids, diapsids, turtles and so on _somehow_ derived, in ways about which no= body cared. You know, the precladistic phylogenetic trees that were compos= ed of blobs. ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Philip Cantino" <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:35 PM Subject: applying widely known names to crown clades > Jason Anderson wrote: > > >Thus, as I asked in my first email and ask again now, > >why are we persisting on keeping Tetrapoda attached to the crown, = and use > >Holotetrapoda for the apomorphy-based definition, when using Tetra= poda and > >Neotetrapoda (or whatever) is logically just as consistent, but > >additionally, will maintain consistency with the literature, and m= oreover > >might help to bring more workers onside? > > [...] I am less interested in the > applications of particular names than I am in developing a system > whose consistency will (1) help users to understand and remember th= e > phylogenetic meanings of names and (2) convey a limited amount of > phylogenetic information directly in the name (e.g., that Pan-X is > the total clade corresponding to crown clade X). I support the autonym proposal. An otherwise consistent system, however, risks steamrolling perhaps h= alf of all ivory towers that contain one systematic community that researche= s one particular part of the tree. The definitions of names should rather b= e decided on a case-to-case basis, to ensure that the PhyloCode will ha= ve enough supporters. > There are other conventions that would also offer such advantages. > For example, widely used names that refer to a character (e.g., > Tetrapoda) could be applied consistently to apomorphy-based clades= , > with Neo- and Pan- referring to the corresponding crown and total > groups, respectively. However, from a practical standpoint, this > convention would not work as well. I agree. In my opinion Tetrapoda should get an apomorphy-based defini= tion (at least for now) not because of the name itself, but because it is practically always equated to the origin of digits, which in turn see= m to be either clearly present or clearly absent because of their development= ary genetics. The turtles are another such case -- the shoulder blades ar= e either outside or inside the ribcage. Now, at midnight, I can't think= of more, but there may be a dozen among invertebrates. (I find Walter Joyce's decision to use *Testudinata* for the apomorphy-based and *Testudines* for the crown clade salomonic. Unfortunately such couples synonyms are not always available.) > Another option would be to apply widely known names consistently to > total groups, with Neo- referring to the corresponding crown, but > this would present a different problem. Ironically, at least one pure* neontologist (Prof. Peter Ax) has advo= cated applying _all_ names to their total groups. It is a very bad idea, ho= wever, in terms of Rec. 10A. * So pure that he refuses to name any clade of entirely extinct anima= ls. > I agree with Jason that an apomorphy-based application may be most > consistent with traditional usage of certain well known names, but = I > place higher priority on the advantages of consistency in applicati= on > of widely used names. Because applying such names consistently to > crown clades does not have the practical problems that applying the= m > consistently to apomorphy-based or total clades would have, I favor > the former. In a considerable number of cases this convention has the same proble= ms as the total clade convention would have.