Preserving the Linnaean heirarchy under the phylogenetic system (Was: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response)

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

Tim Williams writes:
 > The problem is that, with phylogenetic definitions, the relative
 > 'rank' (as implied by the suffix) has to be consistent with the
 > definition.  If you want to encode relative rank, then clades
 > ending in -oidea, -idae, -inae, -ini have to be defined in such a
 > way that they they don't become more inclusive than clades of
 > lesser or equal 'rank'.

Huh?  Who says?  There is certainly nothing about this in the
PhyloCode.

 > Diplodocoidea, Diplodocidae, Diplodocinae, and Diplodocini must be
 > defined such that (a) each is a subset of the one before (in terms
 > of content); and (b) they cannot include clades of equal or greater
 > 'rank' (as denoted by the suffix).
 >
 > On the other hand, Diplodocimorpha is free to go wherever it wants,
 > because it has no Linnaean baggage.

But neither does any other name _within the phylogenetic system_.  At
least, if it does, I'd like to see good solid references.

I agree it's _polite_ to ensure that when -oidea, -idae and -inae
names are all defined, they make up the sort of arrangement that
people are used to seeing; but I've never seen a rule to that effect.

For what it's worth, Diplodocimorpha Calvo and Salgado 1995 =
(_Diplodocus_ + _Rebbachisaurus_) is contained within Diplodocoidea
sensu Wilson and Sereno 1998 = (_Diplodocus_ not _Saltasaurus_)
according to all published phylogenies that include all three
specifier taxa, 

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Can't talk.  Eating" -- Homer Simpson.