[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" <kinman@hotmail.com>

>      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)

> Agnatha,

Paraphyletic. And describes a plesiomorphy (even worse than Dibranchiata [in
Cephalopoda]). Away with it.

> Ciliophora,

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

> Cyanobacteria,

Here is such a case -- was -phyta.

> Metaphyta,

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 =