Research Article

Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution

  • Michelle Spaulding mail,

    Affiliations: Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America, Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, United States of America

  • Maureen A. O'Leary,

    Affiliation: Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America

  • John Gatesy

    Affiliation: Department of Biology, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California, United States of America

  • Published: September 23, 2009
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007062
  • Published in PLOS ONE

Reader Comments (2)

Post a new comment on this article

Why 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.

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.).

Competing interests declared: I am currently a member of the Committee on Phylogenetic Nomenclature, the governing body for the PhyloCode.

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.)

No competing interests declared.