[Taxacom] Invisible evolution, paraphyly

[Ken Kinman]

Curtis,
     WRONG!!!  I do NOT preclude other cuts.  I simply place less importance 
on them and prefer to encode most of them (instead of formally naming so 
many of them).  Apatosaurus is in Class Reptilia (Order Dinosauriformes), 
and Passer is in Class Aves (Order Passeriformes).

     Actually, I would semi-formally recognize the clade (containing 
Apatosaurus and Passer) as "Saurischia", being equal to the formal dinosaur 
suborders Sauropoda plus Theropoda (the latter containing an {{Aves}} 
exgroup marker).  Most of the other "cut" clades that have been formally 
named I would only note in the footnotes, because they mostly interest only 
strict cladists interested in dinosaurs (Eusaurischia, Neotheropoda, 
Coelurosauria, Maniraptoriformes, Maniraptora---just to name a few).

     I see little reason to clutter the main classification with all these 
clade names (many of which turn out to be paraphyletic or polyphyletic 
anyway, i.e. not holophyletic clades).  I actually LOVE cladistic cuts (the 
more you can discover the better).  Just don't formally name so many of 
them, and don't be afraid to formally recognize major paraphyletic taxa.  
Class Reptilia certainly beats the informal "non-avian, non-mammalian 
amniotes") or Order Dinosauriformes beats "non-avian dinosaurs" (which 
dinosaurologists like Peter Dodson have rightly criticized).  Strict 
cladists will go to great lengths to avoid paraphyly, and often it results 
in absurdity (somewhat reminiscent of the overly precise and confusing, 
legalistic verbiage you might find in much Congressional legislation).  It's 
NOT cuts that I preclude, it's all the excessive (strictly cladist) verbiage 
that is being attached to those cuts.
     -----Ken Kinman

**********************************
>From: Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
>To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Invisible evolution, paraphyly
>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:43:46 -0700
>
>On 2007-06-12 07:16, Ken Kinman wrote:
> > My goal for classifiying Class Reptilia is to make those three
> > cladistic cuts at the most useful places so that a consensus might be
> > reached (at least among people who will formally recognize paraphyletic
> > taxa).
>
>A consensus is *required*, since no taxon in the same system can
>simultaneously contain, for example, Apatosaurus and Passer. That's why
>you have to take so much care, since you are precluding other cuts.
>Paraphyletic higher taxa don't play well with others.
>
>--
>Curtis Clark            http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
>Director, I&IT Web Development             +1 909 979 6371
>University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
>

_________________________________________________________________
Like puzzles? Play free games & earn great prizes. Play Clink now. 
http://club.live.com/clink.aspx?icid=clink_hotmailtextlink2