Hymenoptera classification

Susanne Schulmeister susanne71_2000 at YAHOO.DE
Sat Oct 26 16:54:04 CDT 2002


>      I'm glad I got you to wondering about this.  Actually you have
> three
> (not two) different groupings named Tenthredinoidea in a nested
> series
> (which I think ICZN probably would not recommend):
>     (1) Tenthredinoidea s.str.
>     (2) Tenthredinoidea sensu "medio?"
>         (= Blasticotomidae + s.str.)
>     (3) Tenthredinoidea sensu latissimo
>         (= Xyelotomidae + s."medio")
> ------------------------------------------

No, you don't. You have

(1) Tenthredinoidea minus Xyelotomidae and Blasticotomidae
(2) Tenthredinoidea minus Xyelotomidae
(3) Tenthredinoidea


(1) Tenthredinoidea s.str.
(2) Tenthredinoidea s.l. minus Xyelotomidae
(3) Tenthredinoidea s.l.

(I would use the latter.)

The error you make is that you think that a cladist should have (or
wants to have) a "one word name" for every  taxon there is. The truth
is that as soon as you have a cladogram you have the clades, INCLUDING
their names. We don't need a "one word name" for every clade. Have a
look at my paper. There's for example Argidae+Pergidae as a name for a
clade or Vespina+Xiphydrioidea for another clade. Only in order to make
it a bit more convenient to talk about the clade
Vespina+Xiphydrioidea+Siricoidea+Cephoidea, I decided to introduce a
new "one word name" for that clade in that paper, viz. Unicalcarida.

> I didn't fully code all of Clade 3
> ("Tenthredinoidea" sensu latissimo), because I am not yet sure of the
> exact
> cladistic splitting sequence after Blasticotomidae (see below), but
> perhaps
> your new paper in Cladistics will shed some light on the exact
> sequence.

Not really. The phylogeny within Tenthredinoidea s.str. is what I am
working on right now. Except for the monophyly of Argidae+Pergidae, the
relationships within Tenthredinoidea s.str. are uncertain.

>      Just for fun, I threw together a preliminary classification
> (using the
> Kinman System) of the basal eight clades of Hymenoptera (namely, the
> paraphyletic "Symphyta").

I'm not going to discuss that with you. I'm sorry I have to tell you,
but I never bothered to understand your Kinman system. As long as you
don't get it published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, it is
simply not relevant to science. Sorry.

>      Fewer formal names means fewer nomenclature problems (while the
> coding
> still maintains all the sister group information).  Strict cladism
> multiplies the numbers of formal names, and thus many more problems
> (and
> phylocode plans to eliminate *ALL* ranks).  The Kinman System
> provides both
> a synthesis and a compromise

see above

> designed to end the cladisto-eclectic war (of
> 1966-2002... which unfortunately still continues).

it only continues in the minds of the very few people who think like

> P.S.  I am a bit concerned about the position of Siricidae in this
> classification.  I think it might need to be moved up to a more
> primitive
> (earlier branching) position.

No, it doesn't.

I'm not going to discuss this any further. I have some work to do.

Sorry about being a bit rude.


Susanne Schulmeister
Division of Invertebrate Zoology
American Museum of Natural History
Central Park West at 79th Street
New York, NY 10024

Opinions in this email are that of the sender, not the museum.


Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

More information about the Taxacom mailing list