Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeWhy not "Pan-"?
Posted by keesey on 27 Sep 2009 at 17:31 GMT
We then added a standard suffix (“-morpha”) to the crown names to identify corresponding total clades.
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007062#article1.body1.sec1.sec1.p3
I think these are excellent definitions. However, I am curious as to why the authors invented a new convention for total clade names (the suffix "-morpha") instead of using the one recommended by the draft PhyloCode (the hyphenated prefix "Pan-", which would have yielded names such as "Pan-Cetacea", "Pan-Artiodactyla", "Pan-Suina", etc.). I know there are existing total clade names ending in "-morpha" (e.g., "Carnivoramorpha", "Archosauromorpha"), but there are also existing names ending in "-morpha" which are not best applied to total clades (e.g., "Nematomorpha", "Lagomorpha", "Seymouriamorpha", etc.).
RE: Why not "Pan-"?
keesey replied to keesey on 28 Sep 2009 at 04:56 GMT
(Slight correction: Carnivoramorpha is actually not a total clade, since it excludes creodonts.)