[Taxacom] To clade or not to clade

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Thu May 25 09:57:03 CDT 2006


    Coming full circle, I'm fairly sure I will continue to prefer using 
clade (or clading) as a verb, rather than using an adjective (concladic or 
concladal).  Therefore, "Sahelanthropus and Gorilla might clade together", 
rather than "Sahelanthropus and Gorilla might be concladic."   On the other 
hand, if I were suggesting that these two genera should be combined (which I 
am not), it would be easier to use an adjective and say "Sahelanthropus and 
Gorilla are congeneric".  I actually like the "click" sound of the word 
congeneric (even if "congeneral" might have been more soothing to the ear).  
:-)
   -----Cheers,
             Ken Kinman

*********************************
>From: Barry Roth <barry_roth at yahoo.com>
>To: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] To clade or not to clade
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
>
>In either case, additional information is necessary for the term to be 
>meaningful in a given instance of its usage.  For "congeneric," one must 
>know the scope of the genus in question.  This is often specified by the 
>names of taxa in question, but in a situation where said scope and concept 
>are fluid and debated (and that is precisely the context in which these 
>terms are most likely to come into the conversation), not necessarily so.  
>For "concladal," the local topography of the tree under discussion must be 
>known.  As you said, the clade must be specified.  In the instances where 
>the term is most likely to be useful -- in the trenches of phylogenetic 
>argument, remember -- the need to assign some formal rank (tribe? 
>supertribe? infraorder?) in the midst of discussion would often be a 
>burden.  "Consupertribal?"
>
>   Barry
>
>Curtis Clark <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net> wrote:
>   On 2006-05-23 21:49, Barry Roth wrote:
> > I also like the word (did I coin it, or just dream
> > that I did?) "concladal" -- meaning, obviously, "belonging to the
> > same clade." It follows the model of "congeneric" and "confamilial"
> > but without attribution of any particular taxonomic rank.
>
>Assuming a single origin of extant Earth life (and the evidence for that
>is good), any two species are concladal. "Congeneric" works explicitly
>because of the rank; "concladal" works only if the clade is specified.
>
>






More information about the Taxacom mailing list