[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Taxonomy and naming issues



In a message dated 96-06-05 16:57:23 EDT, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
writes (quoting an earlier post by Jonathan Wagner):

>>        If I recall correctly from Mayr's textbook on taxonomy,
>>suprafamilial taxa do not have "priority" in the traditional sense.
>
>Not as in the ICZN rules, no.  However, as a follower of the de
>Querioz-Gauthier school of phylogenetic taxonomy, I recognize another
>principle of priority: two taxa are objective synonyms if they have
>exactly the same phylogenetic definition (e.g., Gauthier's 1986
>Tetanurae and Novas' 1990 Avipoda: birds and all theropods closer to
>birds than to Ceratosaurus).  Two taxa are subjective synonyms if they
>conscribe exactly the same clade, but use one or two different taxa in
>their defintion.

We should clarify what we mean by "exactly the same clade." Two clades may
contain exactly the same genera and species but still be different because
the included genera may be differently organized in the two clades.

>And, Allosauroidea is a Currie and Zhao name.

No, this name is not used by Currie & Zhao (the _Sinraptor_ paper). It's
first used by Sereno et al in the 1994 _Afrovenator_ paper, as far as I know.
Its priority, however, stems from the first usage of the family name
Allosauridae, by Marsh in 1878.

>No, objectively, Sinraptor is more closely related (i.e., shares a more
>recent common ancestor) with Tyrannosaurus and Gallimimus and Trochilis
>(hmmmmmmmmmmmm) than it is to Megalosaurus. :-)

Okay, Tom. What's "Trochilis"? Something new?