[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Hominidae revised (new classification) and Re: Dumb Names
> I don't know off the top of my head exactly where the other extinct Pongid
> genera would go. Sivapithecus with Pongo? Dryopithecine genera with
> Gorilla? I think their relationships are still pretty controversial.
While I don't know for dryopithecines, since molecular evidence for (*Pongo*
+ (*Gorilla* + (*Pan* + *Homo*)))) has turned up 20 years ago, most
classifications I know say
Hylobatidae (sometimes given a superfamily, -oidea)
*Sivapithecus* (including "*Ramapithecus*"), *Pongo*
*Gorilla* (Gorillini, probably Gorillinae has also been proposed,
and the paper HP Thomas R. Holtz just mentioned has Gorillidae. One more
reason to forget ranks!)
*Ardipithecus* (wherever it is put now, I haven't read that
*Australopithecus* (however paraphyletic, usually including
, though the idea of lumping all Homininae or -idae into *Homo* also exists.
(Of course, I was taught the traditional scheme in school. But biology
teachers are, sad to say, often decades behind in their knowledge, at least
I hereby officially support putting Thecodontia ( = -iformes), Agnatha,
Flagellata, Mastigophora, Sarcodina, Apterygota and Anamniota on the
Unofficial List of Dumb Confusing Taxonomic Names (Above Family Level);
surely many more are worth this. I can only think of Vermes and Pachyderm...
(-es? -ata?), which nobody has used for 100 years or so anyway.
In an earlier post today, HP Ken Kinman wrote:
> But neither Dilkes, nor Merck (or anyone else) seems to yet have
> a good handle on how all the basal archosauromorphs are interrelated.
Does Archosauromorpha have a rank in the Kinman System? It seems to be quite
useful, if only for this discussion... or have you replaced it with
Thecodontiformes and its descendants, even though groups outside present
Archosauriformes* were AFAIK never put into Thecodontia?
*I just see here a disadvantage of standardising rank endings -- confusion
with clades that were never considered to have particular ranks.
> Life is so much easier when you don't try to formally name ever clade
> (whether they are valid or not).
True for some clades, but many IMHO need names for easier discussion.
> And the rank of family is so useful, I
> predict that even many diehard cladists will be reluctant to give up
> families and genera in practice.
Actually, all cladists use them now, they just don't always say that. Genera
may come out of use if and when the PhyloCode implements a better idea,
which apparently won't happen very soon; many will be defined as clades
(like *Crocodylus* which includes a clade Globidonta). Though the words
"family", "subfamily" and "tribe" aren't used, names ending in -idae, -inae
and -ini are still given to newly discovered clades, and names in -ini
always designate subclades of ones ending in -inae, and likewise for -inae
and -idae. The advantage of current cladistic practice, however, is that no
monotypic taxa need be coined for rank requirements, and it is possible to
name clades between these ranks, such as Euhadrosauria. Lots of examples at
www.dinosauricon.com | classification.