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

Re: mesosaurus

--- Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jaime Headden wrote:
> ><Rhynchocephalia?  Shouldn't that be
> "Sphenodontia"?>
> >
> >   I believe if both are considered to refer to the
> same group, the one
> >Müller used as Rhynchocephalia and coined waaaaay
> back when the tuatara
> >was described, is considered to have "priority" --
> inasmuch as a
> >non-codified taxon name can have priority -- over
> Sphenodontia.
> I thought the name "Rhynchocephalia" referenced the
> rhynchosaurs, which were 
> once thought to be allied to the tuatara and friends
> (sphenodontids).


As Jaime mentioned, the switch over to Sphenodontia
(which holds a 58 year seniority over Sphenodontida),
was done to remove any confusion with the, now
archosauromorph, rhynchosaurs. It is kind of neat to
note that this switch over to Sphenodontia was done
voluntarily. I guess when the group one studies,
doesn't get published all that often; it's easier to
fix these little boo boos. Though to be fair, the term
rhynchocephalia still holds true for sphenodonts. They
are still "beak heads." They just happen to sound


"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer

Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.