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

Re: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences



 >> There's always a non-zero chance of this happening for any taxon.
> That's science. Maybe Noasaurus will prove undiagnostic since it's
> so fragmentary. Better get rid of Noasauridae in favor of
> "Masiakasauridae" (since Velocisaurus is hardly better).
> Abelisaurus is pretty poorly known too. Carnotauridae is the safer
> way to go. Ornithomimus is based on a few metatarsals and
> metacarpals that may not even belong to the same taxon. Let's go
> with Struthiomimidae just to be sure.

 You know... all these strike me as being REALLY good ideas. ;-)

 For the sake of stability, I really do think it is better to anchor
 clades in well-known taxa. And by 'well-known' I mean scientifically
 well-known (i.e., not fragmentary).

Then you should spell out the fact that you're waving the ICZN goodbye. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just make clear you and Mickey M aren't talking past each other because you're talking about different topics while believing you're talking about the same.