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

Re: Meet me & see my website



--- Nick Gardner <ratites637@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steven Mahon wrote-
> 
> >Yes there is a definition of
> >Neotheropoda that includes Coelophysis & it was
> >defined but it outlawed by Phylocode because it didnt
> >follow the original usage.
> 
> As noted by Mickey, PhyloCode is not yet in effect and it only governs clade 
> names published on January 1, 200n or afterwards.  So there's no reason why 
> it can't yet be used, however, I would prefer to use the Neotheropoda sensu 
> Sereno, 1999.

Sereno's definition violates Recommendation 11A:
"Recommendation 11A. Definitions of converted clade names should be stated in a
way that attempts to capture the spirit of historical use to the degree that it
is consistent with the contemporary concept of monophyly. Consequently, they
should not necessitate, though they may allow, the inclusion of subtaxa that
were historically excluded from the taxon. To accomplish this goal, internal
specifiers of converted clade names should be chosen from among the set of taxa
that were considered to form part of a taxon under either the original or
traditional ideas about the composition of that taxon, and they should not
include members of subtaxa that were not historically considered part of the
taxon."

Coelophysids (well, "podokesaurs") were originally outside Neotheropoda (coined
by Bakker). By Recommendation 11A, they should be allowed but not required to
fall into the clade; hence something like Clade(_Ceratosaurus nasicornis_ +
[insert neornithean species here]) would be more appropriate.


=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com