[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Yay! Cladobabble! :-)
David Marjanovic wrote:
- Is cladistics a good thing? (The cladistic method to find phylogenetic
trees, I mean.)
- Is phylogenetic nomenclature a good thing? (The young art of defining
names. It seems to be true that all followers of PN are cladists, but by no
means vice versa.)
- How, if at all, should Aves be defined? (An extra complicated example of
the above. -- Because it _means_ "birds", no way around this, _I_'d like a
complicated stem-based definition, one so complicated that it'll survive
several decades with hardly changed contents: e. g. "everything more
related to *Passer domesticus* [or perhaps *Turdus merula*... or both...
adding *Struthio camelus* wouldn't hurt either...] than [to] *Velociraptor
mongoliensis*, *Adasaurus mongoliensis*, *Microraptor zhaoianus*, *Troodon
formosus*, *Sinovenator changii*, *Ornithomimus velox*, *Tyrannosaurus
*Ornitholestes hermanni*, *Beipiaosaurus inexpectus*, *Oviraptor
philoceratops*, *Caudipteryx zoui*, *Protarchaeopteryx robusta*,
*Sinosauropteryx prima*, *Scansoriopteryx heilmanni*, *Crocodylus
niloticus*, *Euparkeria capensis*, *Longisquama insignis* and
*Megalancosaurus preonensis*". Add a bat if you like to prevent
Haem[at]othermia. Don't add Archie or an alvarezsaur, I wouldn't like that.
I would like to see the continued use of the node-based definition of the
clade containing both Archaeopteryx lithographica and Vultur gryphus.
However, I would like to make a suggestion, and that is to define Aves as
the most clade containing Archaeopteryx lithographica, Wellnhoferia grandis,
Archaeornis siemensii, Jurapteryx recurva, Archaeopteryx bavarica, and
Vultur gryphus (perhaps a few more neornithines could be added for fun).
Even though I personally am not convinced that A. siemensii or Jurapteryx
recurva are separate species from A. lithographica, I include them, so that
if somehow, they are found to be separate species and these former
Archaeopteryx species do not fall together in a polytomy with each other,
but instead serially to the rest of Aves, that they would not be excluded.
Of course, TMK, no one has proposed where they might fall relative to other
taxa in a phylogenetic analysis, so I'm uncertain of this altogether. And
also, even if they are synonymous, then it'll still be referring to the
holotypes (presumedly) which will be referred specimens under Archaeopteryx
(like with Caenagnathus being used in definitions of a few oviraptorosaur
David, is there something in particular you are aiming for? In phylogenies
that have been proposed by GSP (1988, 2002) and CMIIW, yourself, these taxa
were considered more derived than Archaeopteryx. If this is the case, then
Archaeopteryx is not a member of Aves. Of course, GSP (1988) states: "As
for myself, since most theropods are usually excluded from Aves, I feel it
is all right to exclude protobirds too, even a flying one like
Archaeopteryx, and I prefer to restrict Aves to true birds, including the
toothy ones. One advantage is that Aves is then a morphologically uniform
group, and protobirds are left in the group that matches their anatomical
grade." (206) I am curious now, if GSP still agrees with his last statement
in light of the discovery of various new birds like the confuciusornithids,
Longipteryx, Boluochia, Protopteryx, Sapeornis, Yandangornis,
Omnivoropteryx, etc. which are certainly not morphologically uniform. Of
course, he did describe the enantiornithines as "mysterious and bizzare".
In his phylogenetic chart (224-225), he does not show where the
enantiornithines would have been placed. Instead, he has the "Las Hoyas
bird" (Iberomesornis romeralli), Ganius, Ambiortus, Ichthyornis,
Hesperornis, and other birds (presumedly neornithines?) within a group
Also, why do you include Scansoriopteryx heilmanni as a taxon that should be
excluded from Aves?
- Is phylogenetic nomenclature useful, how useful should a classification
be, and is Linnaean classification more useful than phylogenetic
nomenclature? (Note the constant confusion of nomenclature and
classification. Also note that Benton's famous critique of the PhyloCode is
IMHO not worth much, because it attacks partly a very old version of the
draft PhyloCode, partly a strawman. See
http://dino.eu.tc/Benton-Phylocode.htm [case-sensitive!] for details. [The
cladograms there are all outdated.])
I find PhyloCode to be interesting, however, I have a few problems.
Currently, I would like to know why they want all proper taxa to be
italicized, as opposed to only species, and I suppose the "arbitrary" genus
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.