Message 2005-12-0037: Re: An alternative to the Companion Volume? (short!)

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:20:50 +0200 (MEST)

[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]
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=
> variation in relationships, arguing rather that there may NOT be ro=
> 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 =
a duck and a chicken as internal specifiers, or (if node-based) with =
qualifying clause that excludes sparrows. The idea that Gallanseres i=
paraphyletic already exists (e. g. illustrated, but left almost=20
unexplained, in Hope's chapter of Mesozoic Birds, 2002), so we didn't=
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 =
fun of it I've picked the etymologically best form, even though I've =
seen it.

> This cannot be left to just those contributions in a companion volu=
> but rather may require instead the cooperation of the entire field =
> ornithology to help figure out how best to formulate use of names l=
> "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.

10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse f=FCr Mail, Message, More +++


Feedback to <> is welcome!