Re: UTILITY OF CLADE NAMES

[Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>]

> >  Sure looks that way to me.  Look at the messages I got today claiming
> >  that cladistics is simply a method of recognizing the existing evolutionary
> >  relationships between organisms.  >>

     That is the goal of cladistic ANALYSIS.  Cladistic TAXONOMY, going
back and sticking on the name afterwards, is the next step; don't get the
two confused. 

> Expanding group names doesn't make any sense if the newly included creatures 
> don't
> have the features that diagnose the group.  
  
    Can you imagine what a horrific mess taxonomy would be if every time
our understanding of evolutionary relationships changed we altered the
taxon name so that its translation applied perfectly to all members?
Reseaching the taxonomic history of a taxon in the litterature would be
more of a nightmare then it already is.  This convention was established
with the UNDERSTANDING that knowledge will increase, and that taxon
membership will therefore change.  
    Dr. Holtz used to think that Arctometatarsalia was monophyletic.  
If your psychic powers told you our understanding of this was going to
change, you should have filled him in.  He might have devised a more
appropriate name.
    Incidently, the tradition of prioritizing first named taxa, even
when the name doesn't accurately describe all the taxa that may end up
getting applied to it, long predates cladisitcs.  Leave the poor cladists
alone.   
 
> <shaking head in disbelief>  Before this exchange, I would have sworn that 
> nobody
> could be this deliberately dense

     A lot of people are thinking that right now.

> THE NAME ALONE INDICATES THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP ALL HAVE THE
> ARCTOMETATARSUS AS A  SYNAPOMORPHY.

    As we have repeatedly said, no it does not.  Keeping taxa names
constant and assigning subordinate taxa to it based on thier relatedness 
is a practice that has reduced far more confusion then it has caused.
    We know perfectly well Ornithischians are not that closely related to
birds as dinosaurs go. We know not all Carnivores live primarily on meat.
We know not all tetrapods have legs.  And now we (may) know that not all
theropods with an Arctometatarsalian pes are included in the
Arctometatarsalia.  WE aren't confused, we know what the names mean and
to whom they apply.  Where is the problem?. 
 
> What matters is what a non-expert sees when s/he is reading about
> dinosaur groups.  And what that person is going to see is a name that implies 
> a
> falsehood.
   
     Science is not practiced by laypeople.  Science is practiced
by scientists who are familiar with the conventions and know
perfectly well that a taxon name does NOT necessarily perfectly
describe all of its members, for reasons relating to the changing
nature of knowledge.  However, scientists are welcome to try to EXPLAIN
these things to laypeople who do not understand and are confused or
mislead by the purpose and function of these conventions, like a lot of
people on this list have been trying to do for you.  
     Besides, do you suppose the avergae layperson can fluently translate
Latin and Greek well enough to draw assumptions whenever they hear a taxon
name?

> A bad one doesn't.  A good one does.  Your cavalier attitude is why there are 
> so
> damned many bad names in paleo-taxonomy today, and why a lot of other 
> biologists
> think paleontologists don't know a damned thing about taxonomy.

      Biologists don't prioritize?  REALLY?  What dimension are you
practicing biolgy in?  Try litterally translating some of the names
creating by biologists studying living organisms (Carnivora,
Enchinodermata, an a few others have already been tossed out) and see if
they all apply to all members of the taxon.
     Sorry if I sound rude.  Some of us get cheezed off attacks
like yours because they are nasty then because we disagree with your
points.  Some of you folks out there might be acting out the "contentious
scientist" personna because you read Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" and
think that people in this field are supposed to act like Challanger and
Summerlee. The truth is, palentologists are generally speaking a pretty
laid back bunch. They have thier disagreements, but are overall pretty
willing to be convinced; but only if a well informed and logical argument 
is presented.  

LN Jeff