[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Clade nomenclature Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:58 AM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> I do dislike the name Osteichthyes, but the alternatives proposed so far --
> Euteleostomi, Neoteleostomi, Osteognathostomata -- all have drawbacks of
> their own...

I saw somebody propose "Osteophora" somewhere on the Internet, but it
hasn't been published.

>> Â> Similarly, Pseudosuchia was erected specifically to *exclude*
>> Â> crocodiles (hence the name). ÂYet some definitions of
>> Â> Pseudosuchia allow the crocodilian-containing clade Suchia to be
>> Â> a subset of Pseudosuchia, which strikes me as ridiculous.
>> ÂMe too. Under the PhyloCode this will likely be "Pan-Crocodylia" (or
>> Âat least, informally, "pan-Crocodylia").
> What about Crurotarsi?

Even if that's used as the formal name of the total group,
"pan-Crocodylia" is still available as an informal alternative. See
Recommendation 10.3A.

This is the only place where the PhyloCode makes a recommendation
about informal names, and it's part of a compromise over the panclade
name convention. An earlier draft required panclade names for *all*
named total clades, but this was resisted by some vertebrate
zoologists. (I think vertebrate zoology is the only discipline where
total clades have been explictly named -- it's not much of an issue in
other disciplines.)
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California