[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
George Olshevsky (Dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:
<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??)>
There are no present rules for which taxa you define a clade under. the
ICZN has nothign to do with clade definitions, just that an inclusive
clade be named upon the oldest included genus, which is done. Allain is,
however strangely, restricting the name to the type, no matter the
topotype dentaries (review in progress, he and Chure may change this), if
in fact they pertain to the same animal. No one has, with current
analytical tools (which have nothing to do with computers) shown that any
other specimen actually refers to the same animal as the dentary, and the
remains are all questionably, and historically, associated.
Contra George, however, and as Tom Holtz and Mike Keesey have explained
ad nauseam, it is currently considered more "proper" to anchor taxonomic
definitions where the clade is derived from an included taxon _on_ that
taxon, and Allain's work is an exception, so using this instance of PT
definitions to decry PT in general is not exactly "proper" in its own.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!