[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sapeornis and other Mesozoic Birds
On 9/13/06, Roberto Takata <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 9/13/06, T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com> wrote:
> The problem with Benton's form is that if some other vertebrate group
> developed flight feathers and wings convergently with those of
> avialans, and the other group developed them first, the content would
> completely shift. Gauther and de Queiroz' definition, OTOH, is linked
> to a specific taxon (Vultur gryphus) which it can never exclude.
I do not worry much about that
Well, the example I gave is unlikely (Longisquama ["parafeathered"]
and pterosaurs [winged] are as close as we have to that), but it's
still an important point in principle.
(actually, as far as remember - but do
not rely on my memory, I'm not getting much phosphorus in my diet -
Benton criticize those definitions...).
Let's say that _Vultur gryphus_ was preocupied by a beetle, any
definition based on _V. gryphus_ would shift too if we do not ammend
the definition. Or, let's say _V. gryphus_ is removed to a highly
derived pterosaur clade, the effect would be the same (well, except
for the _V. gryphus_ itself).
Since the PhyloCode requires citations to be provided with species
names, no change would be necessary. There is a proposal in the works
for simple "bookkeeping"-type emendations, although one would not be
needed in this case.
(And, actually, V. gryphus can't be preoccupied by anything, since
it's in Linnaeus 1758!)
For further discussion, this should probably move to
T. Michael Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com