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

Re: PRIORITY RULES



At 11:48 AM 5/29/97 +0100, Darren Naish wrote:
>Hey folks.
>
>Wagner and I have been having an all-out email war over use of the 
>terms Aves
>and Avialae. He says Avialae should be used because of priority, but 
>I said that
>priority rules don't go for higher taxa,

True for the *official* International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature.

> PLUS 'Aves' is just a tad 
>older than
>'Avialae' (like, more than 230 years older..). But _he_ says that, 
>under the new
>clad-rules, priority goes for whichever term was first published in a
>phylogenetic context (i.e. defined in a cladistic framework) _and_ 
>these
>priority rules apply to all taxon names. 
>
>So, what gives?

Cladistic names do not use the official rules, since they have rejected
things like categorical ranks, which are also mandated by the official rules.

Instead they have established, by mutual agreement, an informal set of
rules that fits better with their philosophy of taxonomy.

This is entirely appropriate.

In short, you are talking about different rule sets.

>from Sereno _et al_'s theropod trees!). I know this doesn't go for 
>family and
>subfamily rank names,

Remember - cladists don't use ranks, so there is, to them, no such thing as
"family and subfamily rank names".


--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
                                          sfriesen@netlock.com