Re: Cladistic notation

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- Charles Roustan <charlesroustan@softhome.net> wrote:
[...]
> Now, that's nice and understandable in the context of that particular
> message. But sometimes things get necessarily fancier, for example, here,
> David Marjanovic wrote in some message not long ago:
> 
> +--allzero outgroup
> |--*Caudipteryx* (forgot to mention: composite of all species)
> |--this grouping was not supported without reweighting:
> |  |--Scansoriopterygidae
> |  |--*Archaeopteryx*
> |  |--basal Troodontidae
> |  `--+--*Microraptor* (forgot to mention: composite of both species)
> |     `--+--*Rahonavis*
> |        `--*Shenzhouraptor*
> {lots of snipping}
> 
> This too, I can understand and if I was asked to turn this into a regular
> text-book-style cladogram I could do it, although I would ask myself the
> reason for all the asterisks

The asterisks are in lieu of italicization. Some of us use underscores ("_")
instead, as underlining is another way of denoting formal taxa, in the absence
of the ability to use italics.

> but I think you
> all use different "add-ons" in your cladograms, is it a matter of choice?
> is there more than one way to make an ASCII cladogram?

There's no standardized way.
I developed a system (Mikko Haaramo suggested the "`" part; and I probably
based it on someone else's system, but I don't remember) for use on the old
version of The Dinosauricon (see http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/#format)

Eventually I'll create the ability to generate ASCII cladograms on the new
site. I'm thinking of changing the format slightly. This might be a good
opportunity to throw some ideas out there.

Alphasauria
|--Alphasaurus  
|  | *INST 0001
|  | *uncatalogued
|  | *betai [synonymous?]
|  |?*gammensis
|  |--sp. innom.
|  `--+?-deltapodus
|     `--epsilonius
`--+--Zetamimus
   |  `--eta
   `--Thetasuchoidea
      |?*iotillimus [synonymous?]
      | *Kapparaptor [synonymous?]
      |  `--lambdadon
      |--Muavis
      `--Thetasuchidae

Notes:
- Underlines, italicization, etc. is dispensed with for legibility. No informal
terms are used.
- INST 0001 is a specimen referred to _Alphasaurus_ incertae sedis, possibly
part of taxon within that clade, as is an uncatalogued specimen. (The asterisk
indicating incertae sedis is Mickey Mortimer's idea.)
- _betai_ is also _Alphasaurus_ incertae sedis, and may be synonymous with
another species in that clade.
- _gammensis_ is referred to _Alphasaurus_? incertae sedis.
- An unnamed species is referred to _Alphasaurus_.
- _deltapodus_ is probably but not unquestionably closer to _epsilonius_ than
to the unnamed species.
- _eta_ is the sole species belonging to _Zetamimus_.
- No clade including _Zetamimus_ and _Thetasuchoidea_, but not _Alphasaurus_,
has been named.
- _iotillimus_ is questionably referred to _Thetasuchoidea_ incertae sedis, and
may be synonymous with another thetasuchoid species.
- Ditto for _Kapparaptor lambdadon_, except that it is pretty securely a
thetasuchoid.

I'm not married to this -- for one thing I think that the designations for
"incertae sedis" and "synonymous?" should either both be textual or both be
symbolic. I'd like to hear any thoughts. Also, what's Latin for "uncatalogued 
specimen"?

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com