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

Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_



> Senter's recent paper on archosaurian phylogenetic taxonomy makes the
> following claim:
>
> "If the PhyloCode is published, gains acceptance, and continues to
> recognize apomorphy-based phylogenetic definitions, the valid
> phylogenetic definition of Aves will be the apomorphy-based definition
> of Charig (1985), which ties the name Aves to the origin of feathers."
> (2005:4)

Untrue, because:

> Senter is invoking the draft PhyloCode's rules on precedence (Art.
> 12), but it seems to me that he is overlooking Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of
> the draft PhyloCode:

This is obviously the case.

> Furthermore, Charig's definition doesn't tie the character to a
> particular specimen or species, so it seems to me that the form is
> invalid, anyway.

Of course.

> Would PhyloCode accept Charig's definition even if it
> did cover unregistered taxa published before its starting date?

I can't imagine it.

I conclude that Senter does absolutely great phylogenetics, but not
nomenclature -- he seems not to have read the PhyloCode, at least not the
whole thing.

-- 
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie