[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki, new Early Jurassic ornithischian from South Africa
On 10/10/05, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Is it just me, or does anyone else feel uncomfortable about the idea
> that, once the PhyloCode is implemented, there will be a much stronger
> tendency to respect strict priority in the definitions of clades, so
> that we don't have the kinds of options that Mike and Tim are arguing
> about here?
> I love the fact that the PhyloCode infrastructure includes an on-line
> register of published clade names and definitions, but I find myself
> wondering whether it would be better if the register listed _all_
> published definitions of eacdh name rather than just the first (and
> only, if the recommendations are followed).
I'd like to point out that this is only a problem for converted names.
Taxa that are initially named as properly defined clades don't have
this kind of problem, as far as I can see.
PhyloCode has a number of rules and recommendations to do with
converting traditional taxa to defined clades. If any of these are
ignored, the definition can be repealed and emended or replaced.
That's the safety measure.
That said, I'd agree that repealed definitions should be kept in the
database for historical purposes. I also think that, until the code is
implemented, clades should be cited along with their intended
definition (e.g. _Ornithopoda_ sensu Sereno 1998 vs. _Ornithopoda_
sensu Norman et al. 2004, _Avialae_ Gauthier 1986 vs. _Avialae_ sensu
Gauthier and de Queiroz 2001, etc.). (And even after implementation
this would be a good idea for repealed definitions.)
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com