Aves vs. Avepectora (was: sensu lato)

[Ken Kinman]

Richard,
     Well, I have always favored character weighting.  This would be
especially true in a virtual "tie" as you have described.  This is
unavoidably subjective, but then again character selection and coding is
also often subjective.  Therefore a "kitchen list" of putative
synapomorphies for a proposed clade may not impress me, depending on how
prone those characters are to homoplasy.  Character complexity can also be
helpful in this regard.  Multiple analyses based on different assumptions
should be performed and compared.
     I think it should be clear by now that I believe clade-naming is
excessive and too often premature.  Like it or not, PhyloCode will just
exacerbate this problem (among the various problems that have been discussed
Benton, Platnick, myself, and others).
           ------ Ken Kinman
******************************************
>From: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG>
>Reply-To: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Aves vs. Avepectora (was: sensu lato)
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:31:56 -0600
>
>The same data can give different phylogenies. With the same data set, you
>can get (AB)C supported by 3 advanced characters, (AC)B supported by 2
>advanced characters, and (BC)A supported by 2 advanced characters. We then
>have 3 phylogenies with nearly the same support. Do "all scientists choose
>the simplest explanation," in this case? Or do we have what is essentially
>a
>tie? At what point would we have sufficient reliability that a clade might
>actually be named (without people laughing)?
>
>_______________________
>Richard H. Zander
>Missouri Botanical Garden
>PO Box 299
>St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
>Email: richard.zander at mobot.org
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Curtis Clark [SMTP:jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:22 PM
> > To:   TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> > Subject:      Re: [TAXACOM] Aves vs. Avepectora (was: sensu lato)
> >
> > At 08:26 2002.10.24, Ken Kinman wrote:
> > >      The idea behind PhyloCode is to establish a new authoritarianism,
> > so
> > >that all taxa (incl. Ornithurae) have only one (strictly phylogenetic)
> > >meaning:  Ornithurae "sensu PhyloCode Central Headquarters".
> >
> > All other issues concerning Phylocode aside, this is patently false. As
> > you
> > yourself have so often pointed out, different data can give different
> > phylogenies, and each of these would be a different "sensu" of a
>Phylocode
> > taxon.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
> > Biological Sciences Department            Voice: +1 909 869 4062
> > California State Polytechnic University     FAX: +1 909 869 4078
> > Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu


_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp