[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Be careful what you wish for. We'll have to get rid of
> "Dinosauria"---(1) it's descriptive; and (2) worse yet, Dinosaurus is a
> genus of therapsid. EGAD!!! Looks like "Dinosauria" must be rejected on
> two grounds.
And (3) the description is wrong. It's about time to replace it. B-)
> [...] Platyhelmintha,
That's your standardization for Plat(y)helminthes. :o)
Paraphyletic. And describes a plesiomorphy (even worse than Dibranchiata [in
Cephalopoda]). Away with it.
Monotypic -- includes only Ciliata AFAIK :-)
> Cryptophyta, Rhodophyta, Haptophyta, Dinophyta,
Now we can discuss the appropriateness of each -phyta suffix. I mean, they
photosynthesize, but only Rhodophyta are more closely related to land plants
than to a non-photosynthesizer. As I'm not the first to notice this, we have
Dinophyta = Dinozoa = Dinoflagellata = Dinomastigota, and didn't you suggest
Here is such a case -- was -phyta.
Who besides you uses that actually? I see only Embryophyta in textbooks
etc.. Or do you include the "charophytes"?
> Actinopterygii, Sarcopterygii, etc.
Indeed I don't like Oste_ichthyes_ :-)
> And I haven't even got down to Order level yet. It has been proposed
> that Lepidoptera be replaced by PAPI[LI]ONIFORMES (and it certainly wasn't
In _this_ case... papilio at least means butterfly, doesn't it?
> So I would again urge you to be CAREFUL what you wish for. Like that
> one Metallica song says, "you just might get it" (and then regret it).
> the cladistic "King Nothing" may end up with classifications that nobody
> will use, and his nomenclatural castle will crumble. I think that might
> up being a good theme song for PhyloCode. Who knows?
Read the PhyloCode. You're building a strawman. www.ohiou.edu/phylocode =