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

RE: Ichthyornis paper




Christopher Taylor wrote:

    The frontispiece is a reconstruction of _Ichthyornis_ based on the
results of the paper.

I agree, it's a nice illustration. I wouldn't have described the _Ichthyornis_ as "hover-feeding", though: its feet are in the water!


Overall, it makes *very* interesting reading.

Note, however, that under the ICZN, the
correct name for this species would be _I. anceps_, not _I. dispar_ - while
_I. dispar_ is the type species of the genus, _anceps_ was named earlier,
and so takes priority even though it was originally in a different genus.

Julia begs to differ, and gives her reasons on p.21. Citing Article 67.2 of the ICZN and Article 11.8 of the draft PhyloCode, she claims that because _I. anceps_ was not one of the original nominal species of the genus _Ichthyornis_ (its original name was _Graculavus anceps_, before Marsh shifted it over to _Ichthyornis_), _I. dispar_ is the valid name of the single _Ichthyornis_ species, as well as the type species.


    However, as far as I
can see from a brief skim of the paper (so I may be missing something),
there is nothing to directly say that it is *not* part of the crown.

Indeed, the featured cladograms put _Austinornis_ in an unresolved trichotomy with two extant galliform genera.


In such
a case, I personally would have preferred to call it 'Galliformes incertae
sedis' and so avoid making a whole new name to keep track of

The Pan- prefix is mandated by the PhyloCode for stem clades. Thus, the erection of Pangalliformes was inevitable.




Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963