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

Re: Undefined names, Caudipteryx

From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Reply-To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Undefined names, Caudipteryx
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:26:12 +0200 (MEST)

> As far as I know, there's no need for either of them, since
> "Caudipterygidae"/"Caudipteriidae" would have the same content as
> Caudipteryx.

Caudipteridae (that's the spelling) could include *Nomingia*. -- And under
Linnaean taxonomy there _is_ a need for that name, because every genus
must belong to a family. One more thing I dislike about it. :-)

Well,that's to put everything in convenient,easy-to-work-with ''boxes.'' It just doesn't work to have all kinds of taxa just hanging around in a phylogeny in a way like this:

Order Gruiformes

oh yeah and then we got Aramus,Rhynochetos & Eurypygia wich can't be more properly placed in families,because these would be monotypical. Doesn't work easy for me. Furthermore,Rhynochetidae,Eurypigidae & Aramidae aren't the same at all as their respective species,wich happen to count only one each,because all three families include fossil members as well that obviously aren't part of the living species. Living species should merely be seen as the living representatives of their family.Not as synonimous with this family.


MSN Zoeken, voor duidelijke zoekresultaten! http://search.msn.nl