[Taxacom] Hijacking paraphyletic taxon names (but thankfully not Crustacea)

Sat Feb 10 15:12:28 CST 2018

So, the "solution" here is to have a separate classification system for cladists, which taxonomists can choose to ignore if they wish and retain traditional paraphyletic taxa. The problem here, I suggest, is that some weird cladist/taxonomist hybrid mutants won't be able to resist altering the taxonomy to fit their latest phylogentic hypothesis, in ways which make the changes hard to ignore. The overall result of partly two separate classifications plus some mixing is likely to be chaotic!

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/2/18, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Hijacking paraphyletic taxon names (but thankfully not Crustacea)
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
 Received: Sunday, 11 February, 2018, 9:57 AM

 Hi Stephen,

  That's the point.  We haven't changed the meaning
 of crustaceans or taxon Crustacea.  If strict cladists
 don't like taxon Crustacea because it is paraphyletic,
 they don't have to use it.  
        If the
 same had been done (creating a new clade name) for
 Sarcoptergyii plus Tetrapoda, I wouldn't give strict
 cladists such a hard time.  More importantly, they
 definitely should have created a new name for the
  clade containing dinosaurs plus birds, instead of hijacking
 the name Dinosauria. 

             ---------------Ken

 From: Stephen Thorpe
 <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

 Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 2:41 PM

 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kenneth Kinman

 Subject: Re: Hijacking paraphyletic taxon names (but
 thankfully not Crustacea)

 On a more
 serious note, if insects are descendants of crustaceans,
 then although Parcrustacea saves insects from being
 crustaceans, what happens to the paraphyletic Crustacea?
 Have we lost crustaceans?

 --------------------------------------------

 On Sun, 11/2/18, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Hijacking paraphyletic taxon names (but
 thankfully not Crustacea)

  To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"
 <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>, "Stephen
 Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  Received: Sunday, 11 February, 2018, 9:34 AM

  Hi all,

         We

  probably wouldn't be having a debate about
 paraphyletic

  taxa if the strict cladists hadn't hijacked the names
 of

  major paraphyletic taxa, especially those with large

  exgroups.  Instead of creating a new clade

   name, Sarcopterygii was hijacked and a huge exgroup
 (all

  the tetrapods) shoved into it.  It completely changed
 the

  meaning of Sarcopterygii.  Same with Reptilia and

  Dinosauria (shoving all the birds into them).  If they

  wanted a clade uniting dinosaurs and

   birds, they should have come up with a new name instead
 of

  greatly changing the meaning of taxon Dinosauria. 

         Luckily

  this was done in one major case.  The clade name

  Pancrustacea was created for crustaceans and their
 hexapod

  descendants.  The name Crustacea wasn't
 hijacked. 

  Thank goodness.  

   ---------------Ken  

  From: Stephen Thorpe

  <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>

  Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 10:53 PM

  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Kenneth Kinman

  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Insects are crustacean

  descendants vs. "insects ARE crustaceans"

  Ken,

  I think the cladist mind thinks that a taxon includes
 all

  its decendants, so whatever name applies to the taxon
 also

  applies to all its decendants. So, tetrapods are

  Sarcopterygia/sarcopterygians. Sort of makes sense.

  Tetrapods are also animals, eukaryotes,

   etc.

  Stephen

  --------------------------------------------

  On Sat, 10/2/18, Kenneth Kinman
 <kinman at hotmail.com>

  wrote:

   Subject: [Taxacom] Insects are crustacean descendants
 vs.

  "insects ARE  crustaceans"

   To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"

  <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>

   Received: Saturday, 10 February, 2018, 4:10 PM

   Hi all,

   The present discussion about paraphyly reminds me of

  strict

   cladists insisting that "birds ARE

  dinosaurs",

   rather than "birds are dinosaur
 descendants". 

  I

   suppose they might think that they are preparing the

  next

   generation of young dinosaur lovers to support strict

   cladists and perhaps even become future strict

  cladists.

         But not all dinosaur

   researchers think that this is a good idea.  In his

  paper

   Origin of Birds: The Final Solution? (American

  Zoologist:

   Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 504-512), Peter Dodson says:

  "For

   example, the word dinosaur was not previously
 problematic

  -

   it was universally understood. Within cladistics it
 has

  now

   been redefined to include birds ... and then a new
 and

   cumbersome phrase, non-avian dinosaur, has been

  substituted.

   This is not progress; this is semantic obfuscation
 not

   enlightened communication."

          I agree that it is semantic

   obfuscation.  Saying "Birds are dinosaurs"

   (instead of birds are dinosaur descendants) is  like

  saying

   "Tetrapods are sarcopterygian fish"
 (instead

  of

   Tetrapods are descendants of sarcopterygian fish). 
 Or

  how

   about "Insects are crustaceans", rather
 than

   "Insects are crustacean descendants."

          In all these cases,

   you would be trying to force a well-known exgroup
 taxon

  back

   into its mother taxon.  In other words, it is a war

  against

   paraphyletic taxa which would become glaringly absurd

  if

   applied across the board.  How about
 "Vertebrates

  are

   invertebrates" instead of "Vertebrates are

   invertebrate descendants"?

             -----------------Ken Kinman

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   _______________________________________________

   Taxacom Mailing List

   Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,

   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

 Taxacom Info Page -
 mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists

 mailman.nhm.ku.edu

 Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named
 and brought to life by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia
 Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on ...

  Taxacom Info Page -

  mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists

  mailman.nhm.ku.edu

  Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics.
 Named

  and brought to life by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia

  Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on ...

   The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be

   searched at: 

  http://taxacom.markmail.org

 Taxacom Home - MarkMail -
 Community libraries

 taxacom.markmail.org

 MarkMail is developed and hosted by MarkLogic Corporation.
 MarkMail is a free service for searching mailing list
 archives, with huge advantages over traditional ...

  Taxacom Home - MarkMail -

  Community libraries

  taxacom.markmail.org

  MarkMail is developed and hosted by MarkLogic
 Corporation.

  MarkMail is a free service for searching mailing list

  archives, with huge advantages over traditional ...

   Send Taxacom mailing list

   submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

   To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:

   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

 Taxacom Info Page -
 mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists

 mailman.nhm.ku.edu

 Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics. Named
 and brought to life by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia
 Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on ...

  Taxacom Info Page -

  mailman.nhm.ku.edu Mailing Lists

  mailman.nhm.ku.edu

  Taxacom is an e-mail list for biological systematics.
 Named

  and brought to life by Drs. Richard Zander and Patricia

  Eckel, Taxacom began its peripatetic existence on ...

   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.