Evolutionary research obsoletes taxon names?
James Dow Allen
With latest biochemical clading discoveries, standard
taxonomy has certain flaws, for examples:
Order within order:
Cetacea < Artiofabula < Cetartiodactyla
Class within class within class:
Aves < Sauropsida < Tetrapods < Sarcopterygii
I suppose the old names cause little confusion,
but do professional biologists consider change?
What will the preferred taxonomy be ten years from now?
(Order Cetacea clades with Ruminants, but as
a superfamily within the Artiofabula Suborder.)
(Class Aves, together with dinosaurs and pterosaurs,
forms Superclass Ornithodira, but it then combines
with crocodilians to form an Infraclass within
Class Sauropsida, the monophyletic closure of
Reptilia.)
(Sauropsids then combine with synapsids and
amphibians to form Infraphylum Tetrapoda, but
tetrapods are sibling to lungfish cladisticly:
they combine to form a Rhipidistia clade within
Class Sarcopterygii, Lobe-finned Fishes.)
Is revision of basic taxon definitions on
the table?
Just curious.
James Dow Allen
Graham Jones
"James Dow Allen" <jdall...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hg1o36$1q77$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
I recommend 'The Variety of Life' by Colin Tudge. I think it will answer
your question and many others, and anyway it's a great book.
Looking at some of the trees in it, tracing Aves down, I see
Aves (Dromaeosauridae+)
Maniraptora (other saurischians+)
Saurischia (Ornithischia+)
Dinosauria (Pterosauria+)
Ornithodira (Crocodylotarsi)
unnamed (thecodontians+)
Archosauria (Prolacertiformes+)
unnamed (Rhynchosauridae+)
Archosauromorpha (Lepidosauromorpha)
Neodiapsida (Younginiformes+)
Diapsida (Anapsida)
Sauropsida (Synapsida)
Amniota (Diadectomorpha+)
unnamed (Seymouriamorpha+)
unnamed (Anthracosauria+)
Reptilomorpha (Batrachomorpha)
unnamed (Ichthyostega+)
Tetrapoda (Panderichthyids+)
unnamed (Osteolepiformes+)
unnamed (Dipnoi, Actinistia, Porolepiformes+, unresolved)
Sarcopterygii
where sister groups are in brackets and + means extinct. Rhipidistia is no
longer regarded as a clade. The monophyletic closure of Reptilia is Amniota.
You would need to read two chapters (at least) for the full details.
Graham
James Dow Allen
> "James Dow Allen" <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:hg1o36$1q77$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > With latest biochemical clading discoveries, standard
> > taxonomy has certain flaws, for examples:
> > Order within order:
> > Is revision of basic taxon definitions on
> > the table?
> I recommend 'The Variety of Life' by Colin Tudge. I think it will answer
> your question and many others, and anyway it's a great book.
I'm afraid my question was unclear.
I am *not* asking for detailed clading diagrams. I'm only
concerned with the "librarian's job" of taxon rank terminology.
In the original system, an order could be part of a class,
but not vice versa. To restore this harmony to the
taxon naming, either Aves needs to be demoted to subclass
or lower, or Sarcopterygii promoted to superclass or higher,
or both. (And of course, other taxon ranks need to be
provided in between.)
If the terms "class", "order" etc. are to be kept consistent,
such changes will need to be made.
My question is: When do biologists guess that textbooks
will use such new taxon rank assignments?
James
James Dow Allen
> > With latest biochemical clading discoveries, standard
> > taxonomy has certain flaws, for examples:
Let me rephrase my question again to avoid any
possible further confusion.
My question does *not* involve words
like Aves or Sarcopterygii, nor the
clading details in between.
My question concerns only taxon ranks like
"order", "subclass", "class" and is:
Do biologists intend to revise the assignment
of taxon rank names to clades like Aves;
perhaps, for example, calling Aves a subclass
instead of class?
I do *not* insist such reassignment is
necessary. Textbooks probably include
phrases like "historical convenience blah
blah" and that may be fine.
My question is: is there any interest
among biologists in changing the
taxon rank assignment of some traditional
groups.
Sorry again the original question was unclear.
James Dow Allen