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

Re: Archaeopterodactylus and Euornithes



Tim Williams (twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com) wrote:

<No, there is no "Archaeopterodactylus".  Weird, huh?  Also weird: The
cladogram shows both Archaeopterodactyloidea and Dsungaripteroidea contained
within a larger clade that also ends in "-oidea" (Pterodactyloidea).  Does this
pass muster with the ICZN?  The same cladogram shows _Eudimorphodon_ to be
paraphyletic.>

  Kellner is (intentionally) not following the ICZN mandate that -oidea be a
stem applied to only superfamily-level taxa, and eschews conventional Linnaean
hierarchies. His nomenclature is using the -oidea stem as a "the form of"
modifier to the previous stems. Thus "Archaeopterodactyloidea" is a clade name
in his system, and not a ranked name. It is not based on a preexisting taxon
but names a monophyletic assemblage of "primitive" pterodactyloids compared to
the hose of other taxa in Pterodactyloidea. We are safe in this method until
someone tries to make these stems rank-compatible and mess with the pterosaur
nomenclature to suit an aesthetic mein.

<Is this when the name Impennae was coined for penguins alone?>

  Impennae, "featherless"? Bah. A reference to lacking bound pennaceous (read:
vaned with barbs and barbules) feathers, no doubt, and supposedly the reason
why Euornithes would be those with pennaceous feathers. Such useage would be
extremely polyphyletic today to endorse a reversal as a primitive structure.

  Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com