[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archaeopterodactylus and Euornithes
Tim Williams (email@example.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
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.
Jaime A. Headden
"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005