Re: Crown groups

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

--- jonathan.r.wagner@mail.utexas.edu wrote:
> Keesey wrote:
> > So, why not have the same option in phylogenetic taxonomy? Panstem Clade
> > _Synapsida_, Crown Clade _Mammalia_, Stem Clade _Saurischia_, Node Clade
> > _Dinosauria_, Apomorphy Clade _Avialae_, etc. 
> 
> Yeah, but that kindof misses the point, which is that you can tell WHICH
> taxon
> for which the "pan-" name is the total group: e.g., Panmammalia is the total
> group of Mammalia. I don't see anything in your proposal that serves this
> purpose. So then why even bother? 

This is true, and perhaps it would be good to have some sort of convention for
crown and panstem clades, since they are in 1:1 correspondence with each other.
It just seems to me that mandating affixes is something we should we were
trying to get AWAY from.

I already gave my "Panpan" example of why this would not be a good idea in all
instances. For some others:
Is _Panderichthys_ the panstem clade of _Derichthys_?
Is _Panthera_ the panstem clade of _Thera_?
Is _Panarthropoda_ the panstem clade of _Arthropoda_? (Well, they might try to
redefine it that way, but that's not what it means now.)
Is _Panoplosaurus_ the panstem clade of _Oplosaurus_?
Is _Pantotheria_ the panstem clade of _Totheria_?
etc., etc.

So, perhaps it's a good idea to link corresponding crowns and panstems in some
way, but I don't see how this could be it. Perhaps we could allow hyphens in
this one instance (_Pan-mammalia_)? Or perhaps there's another solution.

And perhaps this discussion should move to the PhyloCode Mailing List....

> That's not to say this isn't an interesting idea in its own right...

Thanks.

=====
=====> 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/