Re: Eponymous Taxa [was: RE: new _Scleromochlus_ ref]

["Jonathan R. Wagner" <znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU>]

        Chris Brochu wrote:

>Hmm.  I was one of those who published about its "inappropriateness" in
>JVP, but in a paper stating why it must be retained as defined by
>Gauthier.  Sorry, but I think Benton is making things even more
>confusing.
        Actually, it isn't just Benton. Several authors have ignored
priority in recent years. However, there certainly are a few decent reasons
for doing so. I don't think anyone who understands the philosophy behind
phylogenetic taxonomy would approve of eliminating a name simply because it
is "inappropriate." Similarly, obviating priority to bring definitions in
line with a new "rationale" for definitions, especially a "rationale" which
has not been subjected to review by the community expected to use the
definitions presented, is also, IMHO, an invalied reason to tamper with
priority. That said, I think arguments of the type seen in Padian,
Hutchinson and Holtz 1999 are more than appropriate, as they are formulated
in the context of appropriateness of definition with respect to the literature.
        As an aside, I was reading Gauthier 1984 (PhD dissertation) last
night, and noted that Pseudosuchia and Ornithosuchia were chosen after
Chatterjee, as the clear choices for a taxa representing the basal split
within Archosauria. I get the impression that there were no other good
candidates.

        Tim Williams wrote:

>>Pseudosuchia. Subsequent attempts to discard this
>>usage as "inappropriate" (e.g. by Sereno and Benton) have been rightly 
>>dismissed (Padian and May 1993).
>
>I'm with Sereno and Benton.  Don't forget, you also have the absurd 
>situation of having a clade called "Suchia" within the "Pseudosuchia".
        You have a clade called "Dinosauria" within "Dinosauromorpha." How
could a dinosaur be a thing merely "shaped like a dinosaur?" As a pesky
geophysicist around Tech likes to ask, why do the "birds" come from the
"reptilian-hipped" dinosaurs instead of the "bird-hipped" dinosaurs. Why are
the "beast-foot" dinosaurs the ancestors of birds and not the "bird-foot"
reptiles? Why is it that the "reptile-foot" dinosaurs have elephantine feet,
whereas the more lizard-footed herrerasaurs are considered "beast-feet?" Why
is _Canis_ within the Cynodonta? Or rather, why are edentates members of the
Cynodonta? Why are psittacosaurs "horn-faces?" Why doesn't Prosauropoda
include the Sauropoda, is it nonmonophyletic? One could go on for days...

>>         So, the way I see it, you have three options:
>Or 4) Stick with PT, but get rid of the really stupid names.
        Fair enough. I consider this to be typological, and therefore
against the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy. But I can't stop you from
doing it. :)

>>Maybe it does make sense that
>>the "true crocodyles" rose from among the "false crocodiles".
>Yes, but PT says more than this.  It says the "true crocodiles" ARE "false 
>crocodiles", just as birds ARE dinosaurs.
        True. I think this brings the point out quite well: there were a
number of crocodile-like animals, together termed the Pseudosuchia or "false
crocodiles." Of course, one of these groups later became the "true
crocodiles." They were still members of the former group, as they are the
descendants of some of the "false crocodiles," animals which had not evolved
to the point where we recognize them as true crocodiles, but which were
ancestral to them.

>Actually, I'm being mostly tongue-in-cheek about this Pseudosuchia thing.  
>But I still think it's silly to keep the name with its present definition.
        Well, in PT, there is no way to change the definition just to suit
your liking. However, If it makes you feel any better, I do think, in
hindsight, thinkm everyone would've been a lot happier if much of our
current experience with PT could have been anticipated back in the
beginning. Hopefully, everyone is learning from the percieved mistakes of
the past. I can say, however, that some certainly have not learned yet...

        Nick Pharris wrote:
>Take half a second to think about all the members of a clade before naming 
>it, dammit!
        Not a bad point, for everyone, not just practitioners of PT.

>OK, who is in charge of making and upholding the rules here?
        Well, someone suggests, others follow. Unfortunately, this may turn
into a popularity contest, with new students of PT going to the biggest name
rather than the clearest thought. As far as I know, the best way to justify
any proposed policy is to find a reference to it in the original three
papers by DeQuiroz and Gauthier (1990, 1992, 1994). Hopefully, in the
future, a set of rules will emerge. Hopefully, said rules will result from a
consensus of opinion from interested scholars guided by the philosophical
clarity of the original authors. Hopefully, this will happen before
everything goes down the tubes.
        As for upholding the rules, we are all in charge. Unfortunately this
means we are all in charge of determining what the rules are. One thing iws
clear, though: a name is a name, regardless of its meaning.

>Should I just go ahead and kill myself?
        I'd rather you didn't. I still look forward to your posts. I
understand your frustration with PT, and I'm sure I share much of it. Just
resign yourself to accepting some compromises with what you think PT shoudl
be, and trust in those authors who have shown appreciation of the finer
points of the original concept to come through.
        Besides, it's only name calling. You are allowed to get antsy when
people actually start throwing punches. And I got your back! :)

        Wagner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock, TX 79409-1053
  "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic lifeform?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi