[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of T.
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 8:18 PM
To: Jaime A. Headden
Subject: Re: Podokesauridae, Problems of Nomenclature Returned
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Jaime A. Headden wrote:
> <Ah, but _Coelophysidae_ was *defined* first. (Podokesauridae has never
> been explicityly defined, TMK.)>
> It doesn't matter. 1) if Podokesauridae is valid, Coelophysidae is sunk,
> in accordance with the ICZN. I believe the Phylocode provision is to move
> the definition to the valid taxon to which it applies; 2) The definition
> is not a valid reason to retain a taxon in priority, as any rule of
> definition application has been established. This may be the desire, but
> until I see it applied effectively, I will follow the ICZN.
I am not following the ICZN in this matter. In my classification
philosophy, and that of others, there is no such thing as a "family-level"
taxon. There are only clades an species. _Coelophysidae_ has been defined
as a clade. Podokesauridae has not.<<
This is what pisses me off with cladist/cladisticks. It's screw the old
system, where making our own!!!
F*&()* this crap.
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 1171
Poway Ca 92074