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

Re: At long last! Turner, Makovicky & Norell on dromaeosaurids



I'd like to go on record as showering love and adoration for their
excellent use of Aves in the paper. Crown group FTW!

-Scott

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> <<"As we have discussed earlier, we view it as problematic to include 
> *Epidendrosaurus* in a phylogenetic analysis because of the extremely poor 
> level of preservation, which results in much missing data, and the likely 
> juvenile status of the holotype specimen. Our exploratory analysis reinforces 
> this latter point. All three recovered synapomorphies are subject to 
> ontogenetic changes and the observed morphology and proportions of the 
> holotype of *Epidendrosaurus* may very well be different from its adult 
> phenotype. [...]">>
>
> David Marjanovic wrote:
>
> <Synapomorphies of *Epidendrosaurus* and what?>
>
>   The preceding two sentences of the quoted section were:
> "Exploratory analysis including *Epidendrosaurus* finds it a basal avialan 
> (fig. 76A). A metatarsal I that articulates with the medial surface of the 
> distal end of metatarsal II (char. 205.3) and a femur that is equal in length 
> to or shorter than the ulna (char. 236.1) and the humerus (char. 266.2) 
> support this relationship." - Turner et al., 2012:pp.130-131.
>
> <Oh, do they mean _aut_apomorphies, like they do in the quote below about 
> Jinfengopteryginae?>
>
>   They are actually referring to synapomorphies. BTW, the paper is free, but 
> the link loads the file directly, so be prepared as it is large: 
> http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/6352/B371.pdf?sequence=1
>
> <<*Bambiraptor feinbergi* (incorrectly written as "feinbergorum")>>
>
> <How many people is it named after?>
>
> More than one, but that's not the point. At 
> http://qilong.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/dromaeosaurs-are-terrestrial-hawks/ I 
> make the following point:
> "[n1] Bambiraptor feinbergi was coined by Burnham et al. (2000) with the 
> intention of honoring the entire Feinberg family, whom had donated resources 
> to enable the acquisition by the AMNH of the holotype and paratype specimens. 
> The formation of the name feinbergi is in keeping with treatments of names 
> honoring single individuals, but according to the International Code of 
> Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN] (1985, 3rd edition), names honoring multiple 
> individuals must take the form -arum (when all honored persons are female) or 
> -orum (when at least one honored person is male), but not -i (male) or -ae 
> (female). In keeping with this tradition, Olshevsky (2000) emended the 
> nomenclature to feinbergorum, which has since been followed (e.g., Turner et 
> al., 2007a and Norell & Makovicky, 2004). However, as of the release of the 
> 4th edition of the Code (which took effect on January 1st, 2000, a date 
> antecedent to Olshevsky, 2000 [which was released towards the middle of that 
> year), this requirement is no longer in effect. Currently, the only spellings 
> that must be corrected are "clear evidence of an inadverdent error, such as a 
> lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error" (Art.32.5.1) or "a name 
> published with a diacritic or other mark" (Art.32.5.2). As stressed by the 
> Code, "[i]ncorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an 
> inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.” 
> Thus, use and affirmation of “feinbergorum” as the correct spelling of the 
> name is in error, and should be discontinued."
>
>   As to whether I am correct or not, I've yet to be directly contradicted, 
> but this means very little. The authors intended, after Jan 1, 2000, to name 
> the animal "feinbergi" -- the ICZN says this should be "feinbergorum," to 
> which Olshevsky corrected, but the ICZN no longer says the name can be 
> changed, by any revisor, on that fact alone.
>
>
> <What I know is of highly influential people (Gauthier, de Queiroz...) who 
> put a lot of emphasis on crown-groups and total groups. They want to use 
> basic names for crown-groups, form the names of total groups by adding the 
> prefix *Pan-* (with the hyphen, and with retaining the following capital 
> letter), and form the names of apomorphy-based clades -- in cases the name 
> refers to an apomorphy -- by adding *Apo-*. So, *Spermatophyta* would be a 
> crown-group, its total group would be *Pan-Spermatophyta*, and the first seed 
> (Greek: _sperma_) plus all its descendants would be *Apo-Spermatophyta*. All 
> jinfengopterygines are dead, so the above paragraph does not and cannot apply 
> to them.>
>
>   It was my implication (and understanding) that there IS an effort to 
> suggest that all different clade definitions have generalized prefixes.
>
> "Allowing etymological meanings to influence the selection of clade names 
> does not violate the general principle of both rank-based and phylogenetic 
> nomenclature that the primary function of a name is to provide a means of 
> referring to a taxon—that is, as opposed to indicating its characters, 
> relationships, or membership[.]"
>
> <Turner et al. apparently want to retain hierarchical information: they want 
> the name Jinfengopteryginae to have some indication that it is part of some 
> clade whose name ends in -idae. Fine, but with the potential of major 
> confusion when the phylogenetic hypothesis changes.> - deQuieroz, 2007:pg.962.
>
>   Perhaps I extended the metaphor too readily, but there was at least SOME 
> proposal to consider this for nodes, though I do not think it was published 
> -- likely on the PhyloCode message group before I left it.
>
>   The names are largely relevant only to those who work on the taxa in 
> particular; they are not necessarily important to those who do not specialize 
> in the field. One big point here is that the use of coordinated nomenclature 
> and ranks is that in the old days, you _counted_ taxa via their ranks, not by 
> the species within them per se. It was easy then to consider the size or 
> relevance of taxon by the stem of its name. I have written more than a few 
> posts to my blog on the subject of inflation of importance when it comes to 
> "raising" or "dropping ranks", -inae to -idae etc. or with "raising" species 
> to "genera", as though that means anything even in the framework of ranks 
> themselves. The problem lies in exterior implications for "genera," 
> "families," "suborders," etc., which are historical and rife with error (as 
> you well know).
>
> <Oh, I need to fix this, because there has never been a *Jeholornis prima*. 
> _Ornis_ is a he, not a she; it's *Jeholornis primus* Zhou & Zhang, 2002, even 
> though Zhou & Zhang have never spelled it that way. The ICZN is almost clear 
> on this (uncharacteristically): the correction is automatic, no emendation 
> needs to be published, and the corrected spelling must be attributed to the 
> original authors (not, for example, to the authors of any unnecessary 
> emendation).>
>
>   I'm not sure on that:
> "Article 31. Species-group names.
> 31.2. Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin 
> or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, must agree 
> in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined.
> 31.2.1. A species-group name that is a simple or compound noun (or noun 
> phrase) in apposition need not agree in gender with the generic name with 
> which it is combined (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender 
> ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1).
> 31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he 
> or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded 
> as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a 
> noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be 
> retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1)."
>
>   Article 34.2.1 concerns species among "Mandatory changes in spelling 
> consequent upon changes in rank or combination." This isn't relevant here, 
> and if I had my way wouldn't ever be relevant.
>
>   My reading of this is that _primus_ is a noun in apposition, and _prima_ is 
> its femine form. As such, there is no need to change it. Yes, they should 
> have followed the convention from the beginning. We can't win it all. If I 
> ever name something that isn't blindingly obviously _easy_, I'm gonna run it 
> through at least two nomenclators (or three).
>
> <It only says: "The scientists' research findings were published in this 
> month's issue of the Geological Bulletin of China". It doesn't explicitly say 
> that anything was printed. Did that journal publish online-early in 2002?>
>
>   Unlike _Nature_, that journal did not publish online at all -- at that 
> time. The date given by the link was the apparent date in which the news feed 
> had acquired hardcopy. This is given as evidence for physical printing. This 
> is also one of the reasons why Zhou and Zhang are trying to assert _weekly_ 
> versus _monthly_ status for precedence.
>
> <If it did not, you're right, and *Shenzhouraptor sinensis* has priority over 
> *Jeholornis primus*.>
>
>   But ... this debate has been going on for a decade now.
>
> <That depends. Are they optimized as reversals?>
>
>   The analysis only gives state-order changes for two characters (noted in 
> the post) and in both, neither were reversals. The analysis also does not 
> give optimizations for DELTRAN or ACCTRAN, so I assume the former.
>
> <Lacrimal (_os lacrimale_, "tear bone"), from Latin _lacrima_ (preclassical 
> _lacruma_), "tear". The Greek for that is _dakryma_, with the exact same 
> unaspirated /k/ and without the occasional Latin shift from /d/ to /l/ (as in 
> _lingua_, or in _Ulixes_ from Greek _Odysseus_).>
>
>   I wish, but the convention for British to American English has been to use 
> "lachrymal" for a while now. And no, I will never, ever print _os 
> lachrymale_. *shudder*
>



-- 
Scott Hartman
Scientific Advisor/Technical Illustrator
(307) 921-9750
(608) 620-4030
website: www.skeletaldrawing.com
blog: http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.com/