Message 2004-10-0193: Re: crown clade convention (long)

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:50:10 -0400

[Previous by date - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by date - Highly imprecise name uses in a neontological paper]
[Previous by subject - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:50:10 -0400
From: [unknown]
Subject: Re: crown clade convention (long)

The Pan- names are primarly for paleontologists.  The neontologists w=
ould =3D
almost never use them.  However, since these names are formed from fr=
om =3D
well known names using a standard convention, they are almost as reco=
le as the well known names!


>>> "Jaime A. Headden" <> - 10/20/04 4:17 PM >>>
David Marjanovic wrote:

<<- Neotetrapoda is not widely known. I am certain that by far most o=
those neontologists simply don't know it exists.>>

to which Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) replied:

<That's exactly the problem!  They're not going to use poorly known n=
if they want people to read their papers.>

  Like Panaves? Pantetrapoda? Pansynapsida? Pantheropsida? Eventually
someone will suggest that the absolute total-content clade better
corresponds to use of the vernacular usually applied to crown groups,=
for just such a reason as that cited above.


Feedback to <> is welcome!