Re: seeking clarification on the cladism debate

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: "-Dinosaur Mailing List-" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: seeking clarification on the cladism debate (RE: hidden
"cladistic" ranks)


> [...] One can discuss non-neornithean _Theropoda_,
> non-coelurosaurian _Tetanurae_, non-ornithothoracean _Maniraptora_, or any
> other singly paraphyletic group with equal ease.

In English, yes. But it isn't that easy everywhere. I can't translate
"avian" into German, not even "birdy", and to translate "dinosaurian" is
possible but sounds really ugly.
This ?argument is even more important to HP Ken Kinman's suggestion of
"informal names", where I couldn't even get around the problem with clumsy
phrases like "not-_Ornithothoraces_-_Maniraptora_".

> Another problem is that of differently-sized sister taxa. Suppose
> _Archaeopteryx_ is the sister group to all other avians. If all other
> avians form a Subclassis, then _Archaeopteryx_ must have a Subclassis as
> well, not to mention Superordo, Ordo, Subordo, Infraordo, Superfamilia,
> Familia, Subfamilia, and Tribus. All for one Genus.

When Aves is a class and everything in Aves except *Archaeopteryx* a
subclass (or several), then under ICZN Archie must indeed get a subclass
(and has got 2 names very early: Archaeornithes, Saur(i)urae). Other than
that "only" order, family and genus are required. (Such cases produce the
meanwhile very rare orders without suborders.)
        Of course that doesn't change the argument. The species *Trichoplax
adhaerens* had to get a _subkingdom_ of its very own, Phagocytellozoa, a
phylum, Placozoa, and I forgot the class and order names. (I haven't seen
the family in use but that must be Trichoplacidae.) All those synonymous
names for nothing!

> Struthioniformes (ostriches and ...
> other ostriches; not even emus, rheas, or cassowaries)

That even depends on who you ask and how similar this someone _feels_ all
ratites are!!!* A definition would come in very handy here. It would end the
confusion.

*And whether they're polyphyletic, as often suggested and at present totally
out of fashion.

> 3. You got a better method?

IMHO phylogenetic taxonomy is like science and democracy: the best of all
bad methods (known at the time). :-)