[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Mike Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> I still think, though, that formal names for grades would
> have to follow some other kind of orthographic practice.
I agree. I've seen grades put in inverted commas; but that's also too
ambiguous by itself. Maybe put quasi- in front of the name (e.g.,
quasi-Iguanodontidae, or shortened to q-Iguanodontidae), for quasi- (Latin
*quasi*, "as it were"). Or put si in front (Latin *si* "if") (e.g.,
si-Iguanodontidae) to emphasize it's not a "real" group (- clade).
It's worth mentioning that the practice of erecting names for groups that are
known (or suspected) to be grades has occurred in other disciplines.
For example, last year a paper came out that described a new 'order' of fossil
spiders, called the Uraraneida ("tailed spiders"). The order was created for
two Paleozoic spider genera, _Attercopus_ and _Permarachne_, that primitively
retain anal flagella. The thing is, at no point did the paper establish that
these two genera form their own clade - the authors were quite open about the
possibility that the two genera might be united by plesiomorphic characters.
Thus, the authors refer to Ururaneida as a 'plesion', which they erected solely
because "we wish to draw attention to its distinctiveness".
In more ways than one, Uraraneida (the tailed spiders) sounds like the spider
equivalent of Sauriurae (= Saururae), the long-tailed birds (i.e., the original
meaning of Saururae/Sauriurae, not the later corruption of the term for an
alleged _Archaeopteryx_+Enantiornithes clade).
However, Sauriurae is no longer accepted as a valid name for the grade of
primitively long-tailed birds (_Archaeopteryx_, _Jeholornis_, etc). I think
this is a good idea, because if we were to discuss Sauriurae as a separate
group, it may be erroneously *assumed* by some to be an independent radiation
of birds, rather than a series of steps leading to the short-tailed birds
(Pygostylia). This is why I'm skeptical of erecting names for grades.
But the practice of having self-consciously paraphyletic 'orders' or 'familes'
is tolerated elsewhere in paleontology. That doesn't make it right, I know.
But there is a recent precedent (Ururaneida), published in a respected
scientific journal (PNAS). I guess it depends on what the reviewers let you
get away with.
Selden, P. A., W. A. Shear & M. D. Sutton. (2008). Fossil evidence for the
origin of spider spinnerets, and a proposed arachnid order. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. USA 105: 20781-20785
--- On Mon, 11/23/09, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Tim Williams <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 7:12 PM
> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
> > However, nobody has really formalized such a system
> > grades. If
> > you're serious about it, why not follow in the
> > of
> > phylogenetic nomenclature?
> > 1) In your papers, wherever you want to use names for
> > grades, define
> > them up front. (Gregory Paul did this in Dinosaurs of
> > Air, for
> > example.) Allow them to overlap.
> > 2) If this is something useful, you'll be able to
> > more and
> > more people to get on board with it.
> > 3) Once there's enough momentum, start to look into
> > codifying the practice.
> > I still think, though, that formal names for grades
> > have to follow some other kind of orthographic
> This is a bit of a tangent, but the practice of erecting
> names for groups that are known (or suspected) to be grades
> has occurred in other disciplines.
> For example, last year a paper came out in PNAS that
> described a new 'order' of fossil spiders, called the
> Uraraneida ("tailed spiders"). The order was created
> for two genera, _Attercopus_ and _Permarachne_. The
> thing is, at no point did the paper establish that these two
> genera form their own clade of basal spiders (arachnids) -
> the authors were quite open about the possibility that the
> two genera might be a grade of basal arachnids. The
> authors refer to Ururaneida as a 'plesion', which they
> erected solely because "we wish to draw attention to its
> Uraraneida sounds like the spider equivalent of Sauriurae
> (or Saururae), for long-tailed birds (the original meaning,
> not the later corruption of the term for an alleged
> _Archaeopteryx_+Enantiornithes clade). So the practice