Re: Syntarsus says farewell....

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:58 PM


> Gould goes on to add,
> Anyone could have applied to the commission for suppression of Apatosaurus
> under the plenary powers in recognition of the widespread popularity and
> stability of Brontosaurus.  I suspect that such an application would have
> succeeded.  But no one bothered, and a good name remains in limbo.

I really wonder why everyone likes the name *Brontosaurus*. I don't -- it
sounds like *Apatosaurus* were even less able to move than the WWD
iguanodonts and trampled a lot.

> (I also
> wish that someone had fought for suppression of the unattractive and
> inappropriate name Hyracotherium in favor of the lovely but later
Eohippus,
> also coined by Marsh.  But again, no one did.)

They've recently been separated again -- *Hyracotherium* has been restricted
to European forms, and *Eohippus* is back. :-)

> I do not always disagree with Gould, honest.  He is, after all, the person
> who wrote, in the Evolution by Walking article in Dinosaur in a Haystack:
>
> The major, sequential branches on the cladogram are defined by

can be found by means of = are diagnosed by

> traits that arose since the last branching point [...]

> So, it is possible that Marsh got so sloppy that he simply used the wrong,
> unintended name in his first publication, and corrected himself later.

Maybe.

> Authors can correct/reverse themselves, no?

AFAIK not, after they have published.