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

Re: Greg Paul is right (again); or "Archie's not a birdy"



 David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:

>>  I like Gauthier and deQueiroz's (2001) proposal that Neornithes
>>  become a more inclusive clade than the crown, such as a node-based
>>  clade that contains _Hesperornis_ and modern birds.
>
> This goes so blatantly against all historical usage since at least the early
> 20th century that the PhyloCode won't even allow it.


Well, it doesn't go against *all* historical usage.  Neornithes was
originally erected to include _Hesperornis_!   (And _Ichthyornis_ too,
as well as modern birds.)


The PhyloCode isn't as strident on this issue of "historical use" as
you are.  It states: "In developing the PhyloCode, much thought has
been given to minimizing the disruption of the existing nomenclature.
Thus, rules and recommendations have been included to ensure that most
names will be applied in ways that approximate their current and/or
historical use."


So if we were to drag Neornithes down a few nodes... no big deal.


evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de> wrote:

> Re Tim: I wouldn't use Hesperornithes/ _Hesperornis regalis_ to delimit 
> *anything* except their own lineage, considering the experience with 
> "Gaviomorphae".


I don't see any problem with using _Hesperornis_ as specifier.  Some
node-based definitions of Ornithurae have already incorporated
_Hesperornis_ (Chiappe, 1995; Padian et al., 1999).  As for
Gaviomorphae... I don't understand its relevance to
Hesperornithes/_Hesperornis_.





Cheers

Tim