[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
List of Dumb Names begun
I've decided to start an Unofficial List of Dumb Confusing Taxonomic
Names (Above Family Level).
Anyone wishing to nominate names for this list, let me know (probably
best offlist unless they are dinosaur taxa).
P.S. One that will almost certainly make the list is Pseudosuchia. I
propose that it be permanently rejected as a biological name (having had a
extremely confusing history), and perhaps even might be confused with
Pseudosushia-----that class of persons who consume pseudosushi
(genetically-engineered uncooked fish). ;-)
But seriously, I really, really hate that name, and hope PhyloCode
will not give it a formal definition. That way it will not be holophyletic,
paraphyletic or dumbophyletic-----it will just be dead and hopefully
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <email@example.com>
To: The Dinosaur Mailing List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:40:56 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, David Marjanovic wrote:
> What about the suggestion to name (Rauisuchia + Aetosauria) Pseudosuchia
> if this is monophyletic?
That has to be monophyletic. I'm guessing you wanted to add a qualifying
clause that excludes _Crocodylia_? Also, _Rauisuchia_ includes
_Crocodylia_! _Rauisuchidae_ is probably what you wanted, although,
per the draft PhyloCode, species or specimens should be used as
specifiers: Clade(_Rauisuchus_ + _Aetosaurus_), provided that _Crocodylus_
does not fall within the clade. (I'm using genera as a shorthand for their
I'm still not sure this is such a great application of the name, since
_Aetosaurus_ and _Rauisuchus_ are members of the clade _Suchia_! (In fact,
Benton used the name _Pseudosuchia_ for the same clade, Clade(_Aetosaurus_
+ _Crocodylus_).) Having _Pseudosuchia_ within _Suchia_ doesn't sit too
well with me....
Really, the only group I can think of which deserves the names
"Pseudosuchia" is _Phytosaurus_ _et al._, which has already been given the
similar name _Parasuchia_.
> Predentata is incorrect anyway, I'd say, it should be Praedentata...
Then why isn't it called a "praedentary" bone?
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com