[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response
On 6/21/06, Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Tim Williams writes:
>> I would disagree strongly in the case of 'Eu-'. This prefix
>> (meaning 'true', as most listmembers are probably aware) has been
>> widely used in multiple circumstances in nomenclature.
> I think context is crucial here. We only have Euornithopoda because
> we had Ornithopoda before it. Euornithopoda was conceived as a
> subset of Ornithopoda. This is also true for Neosauropoda and
> Eusauropoda within Sauropoda, Eusaurischia within Saurischia,
> Neoceratopsia within Ceratopsia, and Euarchonta within Archonta.
> And so on. I support PhyloCode's notion that it is inappopriate to
> have taxa like Euarchonta enduring if and when Archonta is defunct.
Maybe we should be over on the PhyloCode list by this stage, but if
the new version of the Code really does mean to say things like "you
should have EuWHATEVER if there's no WHATEVER", then it has introduced
all that is worst about rank-based nomenclature and needs to be put
out of its misery. When changes in one taxon cause changes in
another, something is badly wrong.
As far as I understand, Euarchonta was named precisely *because*
Archonta was found to be polyphyletic. It was conceived as the
monophyletic core of what we used to think of as Archonta.
It would be utterly perverse if PhyloCode forbade use such
nomenclatural rescue operations.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?