[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response
Nick Pharris wrote:
There are those who would consider encoding relative rank in the ending on
the name a good and useful thing.
The problem is that, with phylogenetic definitions, the relative 'rank' (as
implied by the suffix) has to be consistent with the definition. If you
want to encode relative rank, then clades ending in -oidea, -idae, -inae,
-ini have to be defined in such a way that they they don't become more
inclusive than clades of lesser or equal 'rank'.
For example, if we wanted to name and define a clade Microraptorinae, we
would have to frame the definition such that Microraptorinae would never
include Dromaeosauridae, Dromaeosaurinae or Velociraptorinae. Similarly,
Diplodocoidea, Diplodocidae, Diplodocinae, and Diplodocini must be defined
such that (a) each is a subset of the one before (in terms of content); and
(b) they cannot include clades of equal or greater 'rank' (as denoted by the
suffix). On the other hand, Diplodocimorpha is free to go wherever it
wants, because it has no Linnaean baggage.
This isn't just a theoretical problem. Senter (2004) discussed this problem
with respect to dromaeosaurid nomenclature, when he wanted to name a new
clade for _Microraptor_ and its closest relatives. He studiously avoided
naming his new clade either Microraptoridae or Microraptorinae, because he
foresaw that changes in topology (i.e., relative position of _Microraptor_
vs _Dromaeosaurus_) could put Microraptoridae inside Dromaeosauridae - and
he didn't want that. Instead Senter opted for the name Microraptoria.
Without a suffix to denote 'rank', Microraptoria can be above or below
Dromaeosauridae and/or Dromaeosaurinae. But Dromaeosaurinae has to be