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

Re: tiny-armed theropods



On 12 October 2011 14:07, Matthew Martyniuk <martyniuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except that the ICZN doesn't govern any names above family level.

True enough.  In point of fact there seems to be NO code that governs
the non-PN use of name such as Therizinosauria.  Still, tradition
treats them AS THOUGH they were governed by the ICZN.

> 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?

The PhyloCode's rules for citing a name say to give the name of the
nominal author, not that of the definitional author.  So after the
PhyloCode companion volume FINALLY comes out with its phylogenetic
definition of Sauropoda, it will still be Sauropoda Marsh 1878, not
Sauropoda Taylor et al. 200x (for some value of x > 10).  This is as
it should be, of course.

Nevertheness, there is some fear of a PhyloCode land-rush.  I don't
see it happening, though: everyone knows the difference between
properly worked definitions and land-grabs, and no-one would do their
reputation any good with the latter.

-- Mike.


>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>