[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds

I'm talking about ALL of the taxonomic conventions. You may not appreciate the 
similarities between -aceae and Apo-, but there really isn't that much of a 
difference between them: they are both concept-based affices, special taxonomic 
_categories_, that are being determined by Codes that are borderline or 
actually mandatory, and will lead to the same lack-of-imagination taxonomy that 
is being decried in "Eufalconimorphae", despite the latter not possessing any 
actual mandated affices, merely their appearance. This is how you get people 
confusing any taxon name ending in -oides with a zoologically mandated 
superfamily-rank taxon.


  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 

> Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:12:11 +0200
> From: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: Mesozoic roots of parrots and passerine birds
> > The nesting system of nomenclature suggested by many adherents of the
> > PhyloCode (not including myself, but including de Quieroz and Keesey)
> > defies the property of the nomenclature in general by using
> > mechanical elements without the sense of "real" nomenclature,
> > including the use of symbols or (sometimes) internal capitalization,
> > which just looks ODD and off-putting at first. But it seeks to set a
> > precedence for convention, and when THAT becomes prevalent,
> > regardless of whether it sets aside further nomenclature, we'll come
> > around to people who are forced to constrain their nomenclature
> > toward unimaginative and formulaic names.
> >
> > My preference is that we are NOT constrained by automatic stem or
> > crown affices, nesting sets of suffices, etc. This means defying the
> > properties of the conventions being offered in lieu of the
> > conventions in place, and defying those as well.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jaime A. Headden The Bite Stuff (site v2)
> > http://qilong.wordpress.com/
> You're talking about the Pan- and Apo- "conventions".
> I'm not. You've changed the topic.