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

Re: naming nodes

Ken Kinman (kinman@hotmail.com) wrote:

<By the way, David, in that paper in January 2001, did they only
give informal names to the clades:  australosphenidan clade and
boreosphenidan clade.  Did they resist the temptation to
formally name them? I hope so (that's how it should be).  But
even if they didn't, someone will eventually "formally" name and
define them.  I've only read the abstract, so not sure if they
did it formally or not.>

  I am regretful to inform you that these two names were coined
as formal taxa. It shouldn't've been done, I groaned when I saw
it, especially when it was noted by the authors that the one of
the names (Australosphenida) has a previous senior synonym that
they attempted to explain away by possible content differences
owing to the fossil record. The names have no actual validity,
and their definitions have not been explained, so they are,
technically, synonyms. Australosphenida appears to be an
immediate junior subjective synonym of Marsupialia/Metatheria,
and includes *Abondro* etc..

  It really is a pity...

Jaime A. Headden

  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices