Re: Martin 2004 critique (somewhat lengthy)

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:24:56 -0700 Mickey Mortimer
<Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> writes:

> I have to agree with Baeker.  I blame Martin for doing many things 
> wrong,
> but this isn't one of them.  Phylogenetic nomenclature, though 
> popular in
> some areas of biology, is not official even in the sense of the ICZN 
> yet.
> And Padian and May's definition of Dinosauria is but one of the 
> several
> currently published suggestions.  For instance, Clarke et al. 
> (2004)
> suggested (Megalosaurus bucklandii + Iguanodon bernissartensis), 
> which is
> better than Padian and May's in that it uses taxa which were part 
> of
> Dinosauria when the clade was named, and in that it uses species as
> specifiers.
> This would leave birds and maniraptorans out of 
> Dinosauria in
> Martin's phylogeny.  In fact, the Phylocode specifically uses 
> defining birds
> as dinosaurs as something that should NOT be done (Rec. 11A, example 
> 1).


I humbly stand corrected, and my apologies go to Dr. Martin and to Dr.
Baeker as well.  It is ironic that Martin may hold the high ground on
this issue.  But IMHO, this is still a *horrible* way to do science. 
With multiple published re-definitions of the same clade in print, then
why bother defining clades in the first place?  How does science benefit
when there is nomenclatural chaos?

This process (or lack there of)  appears to have a lot in common with
those infamous  "progressive" skools, wher their is know rong anser. 
Only sugjestshions and opinyons mater.

Regarding PhyloCode:  The DML was discussing nomenclatural stability way
back in 1995.  I had mistakenly assumed that a DECADE would have been a
long enough time to stabilize things a bit.  So much for making
assumptions.

So, Padian and May's defintion is no longer "hip" in the cladist
community, eh?   Shame.  I liked it.  It had a certain elegance to it. 
Maybe I'll publish my own defintion of Dinosauria some day.

<pb>
--