Re: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 5/8/07, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Family Hylobatidae
> >  Genus Hylobates
> >Family Pongidae
> >  Genus Gorilla
> >  Genus Pongo
> >  Genus Pan
> >Family Hominidae
> >  Genus Homo
> >
> >Family Hylobatidae
> >  Genus Bunopithecus
> >  Genus Hylobates
> >  Genus Nomascus
> >  Genus Symphalangus
> >Family Hominidae
> >Subfamily Ponginae
> >  Genus Pongo
> >Subfamily Homininae
> >  Genus Gorilla
> >  Genus Homo
> >  Genus Pan
>
> as far as I can tell, these are two different cladograms *as well as* two
> different classifications.

They aren't, though. They are both based on the topology
((_Bunopithecus_, _Hylobates_, _Nomascus_, _Symphalangus_), (_Pongo_,
(_Gorilla_, (_Homo_, _Pan_)))). The first one opts to recognize
mankind's special place among the great apes by creating a
paraphyletic category (Family Pongidae). The second one better
reflects the cladogram (although it should be noted that once extinct
taxa are added, something will have to give: the last common ancestor
of gibbons and great apes would have to be placed in a paraphyletic
Hylobatidae, a paraphyletic Hominidae, or some new, doubly
paraphyletic family).

Also worth noting that the decision of how inclusive _Hylobates_
should be is subjective. The ICZN's only mandate on the matter is that
it has to include _H. lar_. Whether _Nomascus_, _Symphalangus_, and
_Bunopithecus_ are considered separate genera or subgenera of
_Hylobates_ (or, in some cases, just _Bunopithecus_ and _Nomascus_ as
subgenera of a potentially paraphyletic _Hylobates_) is completely up
to the whim of the author.

--
Mike Keesey