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

Neotheropoda sensu Sereno 1999 (or not!?)

T. Mike Keesey wrote-
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

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.

Egh, I thought that Sereno's definition was the one is Clade{Ceratosaurus nasicornis + Neornithes}, an impression I got from your site! What's going on here...?

Nick Gardner

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail