[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
--- Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> Another problem I had with the JVP Poekilopleuron paper was that the family
> (ending -idae) Megalosauridae and subfamily (ending -inae) Megalosaurinae
> were not anchored to their type genus. For example, the Megalosauridae are
> defined as "Poekilopleuron valesdunensis, Torvosaurus, and Afrovenator, and
> all descendants of their common ancestor." Where is Megalosaurus?? This
> definition could, given the flaccidity of current theropod cladistics, easily
> exclude Megalosaurus from its own family! I could never support this kind of
> shenanigan in phylogenetic taxonomy. (Where were the reviewers??)
Very much agree. Won't be a worry if PhyloCode is implemented, though:
"11.8. In the interest of consistency with the preexisting codes, a clade whose
name is converted from a genus name under a preexisting code, or is derived
from the stem of a genus name, should include the type of the genus name.
Therefore, when a clade name is converted from a preexisting genus name or is a
new or converted name derived from the stem of a genus name, the definition of
the clade name must use the type species of that genus as an internal
Another problem is that according to some phylogenies, this would include
almost all of _Tetanurae_! Maybe those are a bit dated, but still....
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!