[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)
- To: Dinosaur Mailing List <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: The PhyloCode will not address the naming of species (Was The Papers That Ate Cincinnati)
- From: "T. Michael Keesey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:09:46 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
On 5/10/07, evelyn sobielski <email@example.com> wrote:
> What's an example, and how would it be defined? If
That already sounds like a potentially self-destructing definition
(branch-based with multiple external specifiers).
Odontoanseres (or whatnot), Metaves, for example
(Basal taxa attaching to *something* at very shaky
supports is the most common phenomenon). Delimitation
may run anywhere between PhyloCode-compatible and
What do you mean by "delimitation"? Composition lists?
Those that do that usually are more Linnean bent and
use a phylogenetic delimitation only secondarily. See
Mirandornithes for a (likely valid) example.
What's the definition of Mirandornithes?
> bad thing. Even if given a non-self-destructing
> definition, there's
> always the possibility of heterodefinitional
> synonymy with an older,
> more appropriate clade name.
Not in those I saw, no. The number of clades proposed
with PhyloCode in mind is still small.
Yes, but if a name isn't given a definition, it won't get to compete
for priority, anyway.