[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladistic definitions of Dinosauria, Saurischia, Sauropodomorpha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bigelow" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:49 PM
But I think the Committee
should have used a different example to make their point.
Please do suggest one. IMHO the PhyloCode needs more examples anyway.
I like Padian and May's (1993) definition, not just because
it appears to have date priority(?) over all other clade definitions,
Under the PhyloCode, there is no such thing as priority for names that
haven't been validly published according to the PhyloCode. One prerequisite
for that is to have been published _after_ the PhyloCode (or at the same
time as it, means, in the Companion Volume).
but also because it is "edgy" and current.
Definitions must not change*. Therefore they are supposed to be chosen in
such ways that they won't need to be changed -- ever.
* There will be a possibility to appeal to the Committee to change
definitions that have turned out to be unbearable. This will be pretty much
the same as pledging for the conservation of a junior synonym or homonym
under the current codes. In other words, they don't want to be flooded with
Owen 1842 (abridged): "This group ... is characterized by a large
sacrum composed of five ankylosed vertebræ of unusual construction
; by broad ... coracoids and long and slender clavicles, whereby
Crocodilian characters of the vertebral column are combined with a
Lacertian type of the pectoral arch; the dental organs also exhibit
the same transitional or annectent characters....
So he did not consider crocodiles to be lizards ( = Sauria)? Or did he?