[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: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:44:42 +0200 (MEST)

> >because it conveys more information (even if only about the "size" =
> >contents of Aramidae).
>
> Maybe, but you shouldn't forget that everyday people don't work with
> cladistics

I think that's changing... phylogenetic trees are everywhere, and nowadays
most are made by means of cladistics.

That doesn't mean that the masses will actually understand them or that they're correct.


> and if you have to put something like phylogeny in a book for the
> masses it's much more comprehensible if everything's placed in
> ''niveaus'' of the same importance to avoid that people might wonder why
> some species seem to have a far greater importance or status then other
> species.

To the contrary! It's much more comprehensible if *Trichoplax adhaerens*
doesn't get a monotypic subkingdom, which creates the illusion of a huge
diversity that isn't there. Having Aramidae and Gruidae next to each other
makes one think that they're equally diverse. If *Aramus* alone is the
sistergroup of Gruidae, why not present it as such?

It's fine to present it as the sistergroup,but then give it a similiair name,because that will show these are phylogenetic lineages that are close but certainly aren't part of each other.


> Well there is this subfossil kagu,though I don't remember it's name as a
> species.Furthermore,some include the extinct New Zealand adzebill
> (Aptornis (or Apterornis)) in Rhynochetidae as well.

thx

You're welcome.

> As for Psophia,I believe no fossil ones have ever been described,but > they must have existed obviously!

But as long as we don't know any, why are we carrying the name Psophiidae
around? We can always invent it later, when or rather if such a fossil is
actually discovered. We don't need it yet.

Nothing more convenient then allready having the group where they should be placed when they're found.Furthermore,the family has been erected a very long time ago so why do away with it when it's valid?


Brian

_________________________________________________________________
Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/