[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Long-necked stegosaur, head tail mimicry?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> Doesn't matter. ÂWe're simply talking content here. ÂIt's ridiculous (IMHO)
> to claim that Euhelopodidae must include _Omeisaurus_ and _Mamenchisaurus_,
> when Romer's original group (erected nearly 40 years before Upchurch's study)
> included only one of these two genera, and also included genera that were not
> included by Upchurch (such as _Tienshanosaurus_). ÂThe 'historical usage'
> argument cuts both ways. ÂI think Euhelopodidae is fair game for an updated
> content, and a phylogenetic definition to match.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I'd like to advance the idea
of coining a new name. Names with rank-associated suffixes pose
potential problems for agreement between rank-based nomenclature and
phylogenetic nomenclature. Not to say such rank-based names should
never be converted to clade names, but there are alternatives
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies