[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Jaime Headden <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Â Names *Kileskus aristotocus*, and argues a peculiarity: The name
> Proceratosauridae Rauhut et al. 2010 does not satisfy ICZN Art 13.1.1, in
> that a differential diagnosis was not provided.
Article 13.1.1 states that names after 1930 must "be accompanied by a
description or definition that states in words characters that are
purported to differentiate the taxon," or follow the provisions of
13.1.2 (refer to such a statement in another publication) or 13.1.3
(be proposed as a replacement name). It seems to me that the cladistic
analysis by Rauhut (2010) should furnish a suite of synapomorphies
which would fit the bill.
> In addition, the authors argue that when establishing this taxon, it is
> provided as a monophyletic clade, which Averianov et al claim as a tautology,
> as every clade is apparently monophyletic.
Not "apparently", "by definition". A clade is a monophyletic taxon.
The phrase "monophyletic clade" is redundant, like "round planet" or
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies