Re: Dinofest Report #2 (and final)

["Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>]

At 06:59 PM 4/27/98 -0400, Jonathon Woolf wrote:
>There are, however, apparently no rules at all for naming clades.  If there
>were, then the naming and usage patterns would make some sense.  They don't.
        On the one hand, you are correct. There are no rules for naming
*clades*. Why not? Because clades are not all taxa, and therefore there is
no reason to have rules for naming them, anymore than there is a need for
rules for you naming your goldfish. Since nobody but you ever has to talk to
your goldfish, so nobody cares what you call it.

        On the WAY BIG OTHER HAND: There *are* rules for naming PHYLOGENETIC
TAXA. There aren't many, and they aren't completely formalized, but most
people seem to be at least honoring their spirit. The rules are pretty
simple, and well within the spirit of the ICZN code. Following is my
interpretation of the salient points:
        1) The first name associated with a certain definition has priority.
Other taxa with the same definition are objective junior synonyms.
        2) Taxa which are interpreted to describe the same clade (the same
ancestor and descendants) are subjective synonyms, and the first published
name has priority.

        Gripping hand (with reference to the comments of everyone else):
Naming and usage patterns for Linnean taxa don't make much sense either.
Both systems have rules. Rules do not make names make sense. Strict
insistance on the names making sense would add yet another reason to wiggle
the names around every time some new revelation about the biology of a group
came up. That just ain't cool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
                    "...To fight legends." - Kosh Naranek