[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Prolacertiformes and Protorosauria
David Marjanovic writes:
> > I understand that Protorosauria has precedence over
> > Prolacertiformes.
> That's not how it works. In the ICZN, precedence does not apply
> above the family group of ranks; the PhyloCode still isn't
> implemented and won't be retroactive. So, do what you want.
True. But it's still at least _polite_ to follow priority of clade
definitions in the absence of a compelling reason not to. David's
question is a good one.
See page 4 of that classic paper:
Taylor, Michael P. 2007. Phylogenetic definitions in the
pre-PhyloCode era; implications for naming clades under the
PhyloCode. PaleoBios 27 (1): 1-6.
Freely available at:
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself,
as being the end, because what does the end feel like? It's like
trying to extrapolate the end of the universe. lf the universe
is indeed infinite, then what does that mean? How far is all
the way? And then if it stops, what's stopping it and what's
behind what's stopping it? So 'What is the end?' is my question
to you" -- David St. Hubbins, _This Is Spinal Tap_.