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

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

Unfortunately the -opsida is the standard suffix for botanical class names (see the ICBN). You are likely to irritate a lot of botanists.
And if you want standardized endings, you are just converging on my system of reptilian orders ending in -iformes (an ending already in use for bird and fish Orders):
Pterosauriformes, Crocodyliformes, Squamatiformes, Testudiniformes, Mesosauriformes, Ichthyosauriformes, Sauropterygiformes, etc.
I still recognize two dinosaur orders, Saurischiformes and Ornithischiformes. But if they are to be united (as I probably will do in a second edition), then Order Dinosauriformes would be a lot more preferable than a totally new name like Ornithopsida (which would not sit well with most zoologists, and as I stated above the botanists would not look kindly on it either). My Dinosauriformes will be very close in content to the cladistic taxon of the same name, except mine is obviously paraphyletic (although there will be the appropriate marker for exgroup Aves). Dinosaur is not all that horrible a name, and I think we are stuck with it, like it or not.
----- Ken
Nick P. wrote:
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.).

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com