[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
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.
Is there a list "in words"?
If it's in the supplementary information, does the latter count as
published...? I think I'm opening a big can of worms here.
> 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
Indeed. This goes so far that the German word for "clade" is _Monophylum_.
The definition of "clade" is "an ancestor and all its descendants".
It's true that phylogenetic definitions of para- and even polyphyletic
taxa are possible in phylogenetic nomenclature (though forbidden by the
PhyloCode). But that doesn't make such taxa clades.