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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:45 PM

I'm not sure I can agree with your position.  For example, I've got
pretty bored of repeatedly writing "non-neosauropod sauropod"
recently; wouldn't it be nice just to define Eosauropoda as the
paraphyletic group (Sauropoda - Neosauropoda) and then just
refer to eosauropods?

Then just do it: "For the purposes of this paper, we will define Eosauropoda as the paraphyletic group consisting of *Sauropoda* ([registration number]) minus *Neosauropoda* ([registration number])..." "...we find that, instead of being a basal macronarian, *Haplocanthosaurus* is actually an eosauropod." Nothing wrong with this. If you or others do this in several subsequent papers, the name might even take on a life on its own and enter the textbooks. You only cannot _register_ the name; it can't participate in the synonymy and homonymy games. That's all.

Phylogenetic nomenclature makes life easier. Honest! :-)