[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by date - International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature]
[Previous by subject - Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume?]
[Next by subject - Re: And now my quarterly nitpicking...]
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:20:50 +0200 (MEST)
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume? (short!)
Jaime Headden wrote: > Why would you have to wait 100 years? Under Jon's second proposal we would have to. > Defining Galloanserae for whatever grand support it has had > recently may in fact be wrong, if Galliformes is basal to a > ((Anseriformes + Odontopterygiformes) + Neoaves) clade. Careful > planning of such contingencies will in fact require robust support > and analyses of various other forms to take into account the possib= le > variation in relationships, arguing rather that there may NOT be ro= bust > support for such a taxon as Galloanserae, and that plasticity > of nomenclature either requires extensive foresight to formulate a > durable, yet flexible definition. In short, Gallanseres* should be defined either (if stem-based) with = both=20 a duck and a chicken as internal specifiers, or (if node-based) with = a=20 qualifying clause that excludes sparrows. The idea that Gallanseres i= s=20 paraphyletic already exists (e. g. illustrated, but left almost=20 unexplained, in Hope's chapter of Mesozoic Birds, 2002), so we didn't= even=20 need to wait for the new example to find out what a cautious definiti= on of=20 Gallanseres should look like. * Variously "Galloanseres" and "Galloanserae" in the literature. For = the=20 fun of it I've picked the etymologically best form, even though I've = never=20 seen it. > This cannot be left to just those contributions in a companion volu= me, > but rather may require instead the cooperation of the entire field = of > ornithology to help figure out how best to formulate use of names l= ike > "Galloanserae" that fits the diversity of data. This is exactly my suggestion. > As it it, databases on comparative anatomies and genebanks, not to > mention morphological character datasets, need to be larger. Yes, but that's a completely different problem. It has next to nothin= g to=20 do with phylogenetic nomenclature. --=20 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++