[Taxacom] Arthropods and idiots!

[John Grehan]

Stephen, I am not aware that I confused nomenclature with systematics in my
response to Ken. Please clarify. Its always possible. John Grehan

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 2:48 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

> John accuses Ken of confusing nomenclature with systematics and then
> proceeds to do the very same thing! My point is a nomenclatural one. The
> systematic rationale for any name change is irrelevant! The only
> circumstance in which the major groups of Hexapoda, Arachnida and Crustacea
> should not be combined (with or without other groups which are
> "arthropodised" or not) as Arthropoda would be if "arthropodisation" in
> these three major groups was the result of convergence (or even
> coincidence). There are no nomenclatural rules governing the use of these
> higher names, so stability should be the main concern. There is nothing to
> say that a name must change if its "taxonomic concept" changes, i.e.
> whether Onychophora is an ingroup or an outgroup, Arthropoda is still
> Arthropoda. So, basically, although a few people might be more interested
> in working with a clade Euarthropoda, they definitely should not be allowed
> to destabilise the formal phylum Arthropoda, which remains, as always, a
> major grouping of organisms. Additionally, making such a massively
> significant name change based on a single article by a single author is
> never a good idea!
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 13/12/18, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Arthropods and idiots!
>  To: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
>  Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <
> stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>  Received: Thursday, 13 December, 2018, 5:25 AM
>
>  Have to
>  note that Ken is off base when confusing nomenclatural terms
>  with the construction of systematic relationships once
>  again. Making new names or changing old ones is something
>  anyone with any phylogenetic approach can do. If Stephen is
>  correct that
>
>  Arthropoda has simply been swapped for Euarthropoda it would
>  certainly seem pointless, so it would have been a little
>  more helpful to those not directly engaged in such issues if
>  Stephen had referred to the rationale presented by the
>  authors.
>  When Ken states
>  that he suspects that cladistic analyses are very badly
>  misrooted I would agree with him that is of concern if
>  correct (and by rooting I presume this means having the
>  correct sister group as the outgroup?). So I would look
>  forward in the future to any informative postings about
>  that.
>
>  John
>  Grehan
>  On Wed, Dec
>  12, 2018 at 10:20 AM Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
>  wrote:
>  Hi Stephen,
>
>         Just as strict cladists of vertebrate
>  paleontology have destabilized vertebrate classification,
>  strict cladists of arthropod paleontology seem to be doing
>  the same to arthropod classification.
>
>         HOWEVER, with arthropods it will likely be much
>  worse if (as I have long believed) their cladistic analyses
>  are very badly misrooted.  At least vertebrate trees are
>  generally well rooted with appropriate outgroups.  If
>  onychophorans, tardigrades, and other ecydysozoans are
>  actually ingroups (and are merely dearthropodized), using
>  them as outgroups has been misleading researchers for many
>  decades.   You can read my postings on that subject (here
>  on Taxacom) back in 2010:
>
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2010-February/068191.html
>
>
>
>                   ------------------Ken
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
>
>  From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>  on behalf of Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
>
>  Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 9:39 PM
>
>  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>  Subject: [Taxacom] Arthropods and idiots!
>
>
>
>  Firmly in the category of pointless name changes, must be
>  Euarthropoda for Arthropoda, which seems to be catching on,
>  and has been recently adopted by Wikipedia! It all seems to
>  be the result of one paper:
>
>
>
>  Ortega‐Hernández, J. 2014 (online) 2016 (print): Making
>  sense of ‘lower’ and ‘upper’ stem‐group
>  Euarthropoda, with comments on the strict use of the name
>  Arthropoda von Siebold, 1848. Biological reviews, 91(1):
>  255-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12168
>
>
>
>  Needless to say that there are no formal rules which govern
>  the appropriateness or otherwise of names at this level,
>  and, in the case of Arthropoda, universal usage for hundreds
>  of years should be the main consideration!
>
>
>
>  Big sigh!
>
>
>
>  Stephen
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
>  Taxacom Mailing List
>
>  Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
>
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>  You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
>
>  Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some
>  Years, 1987-2018.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
>  Taxacom Mailing List
>
>  Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
>
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>  The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>  You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
>
>  Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some
>  Years, 1987-2018.
>
>
>