Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?

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

--- Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote-
> > These
> > definitions are deliberately not formalized pending recommendation of the
> > PhyloCode regarding the proposed use of "pan" as a prefix in all stem
> clade
> > names (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001 )
> 
> What are others' opinions on using the Pan- prefix for all stem-based
> clades?  Personally, I find it terribly monotonous.

Not only that, but, if you apply their philosophy to our species and its
closest extant relatives, you'd get something like:

+--Pangorilla (crown-modified stem)
|  `--Gorilla (crown)
|     |--Gorilla gorilla
|     `--Gorilla beringei
`--Panhomopan (crown-modified stem)
   `--Homopan (crown)
      |--Panhomo (crown-modified stem)
      |  `--Homo sapiens
      `--Panpan (crown-modified stem)
         `--Pan (crown)
            |--Pan troglodytes
            `--Pan paniscus

To bring this back to dinosaurs, I don't think the philosophy is meant to cover
all stem-based clades (unless I missed something), just crown-modified stems
(or "panstem" clades). The only effect this would have on dinosaurian taxonomy
would be within _Aves_ (sensu stricto; the crown clade) and on various groups
including dinosaurs (_Panaves_, etc.)

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <http://dino.lm.com/contact>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/