[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
On 30 March 2010 20:44, David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
A point of precision: the PhyloCode doesn't, of course, ban such
formations -- it merely doesn't govern them. I am perfectly free to
defined Eosauropoda phylogenetically as the praphyletic group obtained
by removing Neosauropoda from Sauropoda (and may well do so); but that
definition won't be governed by the PhyloCode, and wouldn't be
accepted into the PhyloCode registration database.
Sadly, I may have to write a (very short) separate ParaPhyloCode to
govern such definitions. And make a separate registration database
(though how hard can that be?)