[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, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
Andreas Johansson wrote:

>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.

This strikes me as an oxymoron.  We don't have 'archontans' any more, but we
still have the 'true archontans'....??!!  Similarly, if we have clade
Euornithopoda without Ornithopoda, we would have 'true ornithopods' without
the 'ornithopods'.  Hmm...

Really, is it THAT hard to come up with an original clade name that doesn't
entail putting 'Eu-' or 'Neo-' onto a pre-existing name.  Use your
imagination, people!  :-)

All hail Dryomorpha, Ankylopollexia, Styracosterna and so forth. ;)

Nick Gardner