[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

defending myself again

I believe Romer, Simpson, and others, also described Dinosauria as polyphyletic, but that didn't stop me from recognizing an informal dinosauria clade. Mammalia has been described as polyphyletic in the past as well (especially by Simpson).
And I don't like traditional paraphyletic groups any more than you do. I nest Therapsiformes within Pelycosauriformes by the _a_ coding below, plus an appropriately placed (and coded) marker within Order Pelycosauriformes: {{Therapsiformes}} (thence to Mammalea). Therefore, my Pelycosauriformes is "semi-paraphyletic", and therefore informationally holophyletic (therapsids and mammals shown as nested within it). Pure "cladifications" (as Mayr calls them) are no longer the only way to do cladistic nesting!!!
And these are not "neotaxa". The endings are simply "emended" in an attempt to standardize names of orders and classes. Invertebrate paleontologists have been doing this for decades for ordinal names, and I use their -ida suffix for all metazoan orders (except for chordates).
Yes, I did name some neotaxa, like Class Scorpionea (and recent fossil evidence now supports this), but the rest are simply an extension of what has been done for invertebrates in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology since the 1950's. Emended standardized endings are nothing new, and the majority of chordate orders were already standardized with the -iformes suffix a long time ago by the ichthyologists and ornithologists. And botanists and bacteriologists already use -ales for all their orders.
And every Class in my book (from the bacteria to mammals) has the increasing popular -ea suffix for classes. This only required very minor emendations: -phyceae to -phycea, -mycetes to -mycetea, -ia to -ea, and Cavalier-Smith has used the -ea ending for his many new classes of protozoa and algae during the 80's and 90's.
Standardization is coming, like it or not, and I am attempting to do this without the disruption that mandating typification would cause. Would you rather adopt my Order Lepidopterida, or have a totally new name like Papioniformes (this and other such names are already popping up in entomological literature). You can do a single literature search for Lepidoptera and Lepidopterida utilizing truncation, but Papioniformes is a totally different name (_neo nomina_, as you call them). Unfortunately, Carpenter's Treatise volumes on fossil insects is an exception to their standardization program, and a missed opportunity just because so many are hungup on typification.
Would you like to go through what the ornithologists went through many decades ago? I would rather emend endings now, rather than wait for a more radical typification of names. Oh, I forgot, the cladists think the Linnean System is going to crash and burn (don't hold your breath guys). :-)
------Ken Kinman
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: qilongia@yahoo.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
CC: kinman@hotmail.com
Subject: Pelycosauriformes?
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:32:53 -0700 (PDT)

  Sorry, next gripe:

You wrote:

   1  Pelycosauriformes
  _a_ Therapsiformes
  _a_ {{Class Mammalea}}
   2  Mesosauriformes>

  Pelycosauria (root) has been described
(non-cladistically, I might add) as polyphyletic,
comprised from a basal (*Ophiacodon*) through a series
up to theropsids, thereabouts with the incredibly cool
gorgonopsians and dicynodonts. There are a series of
developments found (Colbert, I think, then Romer,
described these without the benefit of Hennig's
inovations) in the jaws and appendicular skeletons of
varanopsids, ophiacodonts, sphenacodonts, edaphosaurs,
etc., that lead up to Theropsida, Gorgonopsida,
Cynodontia, etc.

  Perhaps most argumentably, "Pelycosauriformes" is
the least tenable of these _neo nomina_; in fact,
"neotaxa" could be a handy term for a paraphyletic
taxon defined for just such a purpose, but I could
just rephrase my dislike for paraphyletic _taxa_.

Jaime "James" A. Headden

  Dinosaurs are horrible, terrible creatures! Even the
  fluffy ones, the snuggle-up-at-night-with ones. You think
  they're fun and sweet, but watch out for that stray tail
  spike! Down, gaston, down, boy! No, not on top of Momma!

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com