[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The iguanodont paper
T. Michael Keesey writes:
> > I just re-read the Gauthier and de Queiroz paper that came up
> > with Aviremigia, Avipinna, etc. I don't these these particular
> > apomorohy-based clades were actually formally erected and
> > defined, just proposed as prospective clades.
> True, but that's also true of every clade definition -- there is no
> such thing as a formal clade definition at present. It's the Wild
> West until Sheriff PhyloCode (or someone) gets around to setting up
... although some useful guidance is provided by:
Taylor, Michael P. 2007. Phylogenetic definitions in
the pre-PhyloCode era; implications for naming clades
under the PhyloCode. PaleoBios 27 (1): 1-6.
which may be freely downloaded from:
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "A time may soon come when none will return. Then there will
be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the
deeds that are done in the last defence of your homes. Yet the
deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised." --
Aragon in J. R. R. Tolkein, _The Lord of the Rings_.