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

Re: tiny-armed theropods



Except that the ICZN doesn't govern any names above family level. It
seems odd that a code would explicitly reject precedence of name over
precedence of definition. What's to stop a huge land rush to supplant
existing names and trump centuries old author priority in favor of
ones self?

Matt

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> wrote:
> No; the PhyloCode only governs names when used as clade names.  So in
> the scenario you mention, the clade name Therizinosauria will have
> priority over Segnosauria (under the governance of the PhyloCode); and
> the rank-based name Segnosauria will continue to have priority over
> Therizinosauria (under the ICZN).  So you would choose which name to
> use on the basis of whether you were talking about clades or
> rank-based names.
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
> On 12 October 2011 13:31, Matthew Martyniuk <martyniuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I understand the PhyloCode correctly, date of definition does not
>> take priority over date of naming. So even if Therizinosauria
>> (Russell, 1997) is formally defined and registered as the stem
>> (Therizinosaurus > Passer), even if Segnosauria (Barsbold, 1980) is
>> *later* formally defined and registered as (Segnosaurus > Passer),
>> assuming this is the same group, Segnosauria will still have priority
>> because the name was coined before Therizinosauria, despite the fact
>> that Therizinosauria was defined/registered first.
>>
>> The ICPN also does away with the principle of coordination, so as far
>> as the ICPN is concerned, Therizinosauroidea was coined by Russell &
>> Dong 1994, not Maleev 1954.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   *Segnosauria* is not defined as a taxon in a Family-level rank, and thus 
>>> has no bearing with relation to *Therizinosauroidea*, the name used in 
>>> support for *Therizinosauridae*, etc., which does have priority over 
>>> *Segnosauridae*. *Therizinosauroidea* was used to supplant *Segnosauria* as 
>>> the name of value for the stem, and has been kept that way based solely on 
>>> use and the sense of "whomever defines it first shall have that name be 
>>> used (even if the definition change) forever!"
>>>
>>>   It's silly that, until *Therizinosauria* become used more recently, 
>>> *Segnosauria* could still be used for the group. But this hasn't been the 
>>> case for workers discussing therizinosaur total group, and I think the name 
>>> will fall to disfavor unless somehow resurrected.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>  Jaime A. Headden
>>>  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
>>>  http://qilong.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>> "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
>>> different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
>>> has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
>>> his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
>>> Backs)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:28:32 +1100
>>>> From: tijawi@gmail.com
>>>> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: tiny-armed theropods
>>>>
>>>> David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > ...although, in ornithomimo- and segnosaurs alike, the head + neck is 
>>>> > still
>>>> > longer than the forelimbs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The necks of ornithomimosaurs and therizinosaurs are decidedly long.
>>>>
>>>> And yeah... I also prefer the name 'segnosaurs' over 'therizinosaurs'.
>>>> ;-) But I guess the latter has priority.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jason Brougham <jaseb@amnh.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I see, so you are suggesting that all theropods would benefit from 
>>>> > reduction of their pectoral limbs if
>>>> > they could find a way to do without arms in feeding and brooding and 
>>>> > whatnot, because it would
>>>> > make them more agile.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was the essence of Carrier et al's (2001) paper on rotational
>>>> inertia in theropods (J Exp Biol. 2204: 3917-26). The resulting
>>>> agility while turning might also have driven the evolution of the
>>>> forelimb-folding mechanism in maniraptorans, conferred by the
>>>> semilunate carpal joint. (I don't buy GSP's notion that the
>>>> semilunate carpal evolved as a flight-related/flapping feature.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > It's just that dispensing with the arms' uses must have been impossible 
>>>> > for many theropods,
>>>> > possibly for a large or even an innumerable set of interacting reasons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've wondered about this. It is likely that bipedality preceded
>>>> predatory behavior in dinosaur evolution. The study of Martinez et
>>>> al. (2011) further indicates that the ancestral body plan for
>>>> dinosaurs included a proportionately long forelimb (~45% hindlimb
>>>> length) and a sharp-clawed manus capable of hyperextension. Theropods
>>>> show a shift to a more raptorial/grasping manus (elongate penultimate
>>>> phalanges of manus, etc). Nevertheless, it appears to me that once
>>>> dinosaurs became bipedal it was a case of: "So, what do we do now with
>>>> these appendages?"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>