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

Re: tiny-armed theropods



On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com> wrote:
> 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.

Fair enough, though it will be hard to determine which name has
priority without referring to a secondary source to figure out the
definitional author/date as well. I suppose we'll have to start citing
two authors for every name, so we know "Diplodocoidae Marsh 1884
(Taylor et al. 2012)" has priority over "Atlantosauridae Marsh 1877
(Martyniuk 2013)".

>
> 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.
>

Unless it's inadvertent, and someone defines a name while unaware that
a different name is traditionally used for that group. Hopefully the
appeals process in the ICPN will be more efficient than the ICZN ;)

Matt

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