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

Re: Ornithopsida (was Re: Dinosauria---Rejected Name?)



In a message dated 2/24/02 6:01:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, kinman@hotmail.com writes:


     I can't speak for Jaime.  However, from my own perspective, any
sweeping proposal of this kind should be comprehensive (i.e., taking in
account all taxa, living and fossil).  Otherwise, you risk ending up with a
classification that  isn't very coherent, and likely to turn into something
that is just new and more complicated without any obvious benefit
.


Well, ideally, I'd like it to be comprehensive.  However, the relationships among all amniote groups are not completely worked out, so there is a very high probability that some clades named now on the basis of fossil taxa would turn out either A.) to be redundant or B.) to end up with a very different content from what I had in mind when I coined the name.

I like the -opsida system of stem-based clades because it starts from the groups we know best (i.e. the living ones) and provides a blueprint for naming additional clades should they prove necessary to cover fossil taxa not classified under the system I outlined (e.g. Mesosauropsida, Ichthyosauropsida, Pterosauropsida, etc.).

--Nick P.