[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Preserving the Linnaean heirarchy under the phylogenetic system (Was: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response)
Tim Williams writes:
> 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'.
Huh? Who says? There is certainly nothing about this in the
> 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.
But neither does any other name _within the phylogenetic system_. At
least, if it does, I'd like to see good solid references.
I agree it's _polite_ to ensure that when -oidea, -idae and -inae
names are all defined, they make up the sort of arrangement that
people are used to seeing; but I've never seen a rule to that effect.
For what it's worth, Diplodocimorpha Calvo and Salgado 1995 =
(_Diplodocus_ + _Rebbachisaurus_) is contained within Diplodocoidea
sensu Wilson and Sereno 1998 = (_Diplodocus_ not _Saltasaurus_)
according to all published phylogenies that include all three
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Can't talk. Eating" -- Homer Simpson.