[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, such was the original intent of each. However, both have migrated
> (crownward for Averostra, basally for Neotheropoda) into the
> currently established uses, and it is almost cetainly these new incarnations
> will be the ones registered in the PhyloCode registry.
> Them's the breaks...
Are either one of these really *that* established? It seems to me that
many (most?) uses of Neotheropoda have been ambiguous on the matter,
since they appear in contexts where coelophysoids are ceratosaurs. And
has Averostra really seen adoption that wide? (I agree that its
definition needs emendation, but it seems odd not to require the
inclusion of, e.g., Dilophosaurus. Also, is it too late to fix the
spelling to "Avirostra"?)
T. Michael Keesey