Re: Classification: A Definition

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 5/22/07, Christopher Taylor <gerarus@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> Not quite what I meant :-). I am fully sympathetic to the
> no-monotypic-higher-taxa drive - I agree that they generally serve
> little or no purpose, clutter up the literature and possibly even cause
> harm by adding to the impression that taxa at the same "rank" are
> somehow equivalent. However, if you had reasons to believe that your new
> taxon was probably related to some other neosauropod of equally
> uncertain position (for the sake of argument, let's say _Euhelopus_) but
> were unable to rigorously test this phylogenetically, it might still be
> useful to unite the two as "Euhelopodidae" as a means of highlighting
> the likely connection.
[...]
> One final point that I should probably make before this discussion moves
> in an unintended direction - the points I've been making are not
> intended as attacks on phylogenetic nomenclature _per se_. They are
> arguments about making phylogeny a _sine qua non_ of nomenclature.

But your nomenclature is still based on phylogeny. Euhelopodidae would
be a recognized phylogenetic entity in your example, even if its exact
relationships are uncertain. (Just as pterosaurs are pterosaurs
regardless of whether they are pan-avians, non-archosaurian
archosauromorphs, or whatever; and testudines are testudines
regardless of whether they are diapsids or not.)

It doesn't seem like you have an actual argument with phylogenetic
nomenclature, unless you really think there should be some other
component to nomenclature, such as phenetic similarity, ecological
niche, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case, so....

--
Mike Keesey