[Previous by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by date - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Previous by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
[Next by subject - Re: apomorphy-based names]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:38:22 -0500
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: apomorphy-based names
Jonathan Wagner wrote: "Although, As Dr. De Quieroz has pointed out, VP workers may be more inclined toward apomoprhy-baed definitions, I do not feel that we project a *need* for them. They effectively do not exist in the current practice of dinosaurian phylogenetic nomenclature... we all took Baum 1995 to heart. In recent papers on the phylognetic taxonomy of mammals and non-crown birds (within dinosaur stuidies), I have seen a similar paucity of apomorphy-based definitions, although I do not know this literature as well." Actually, my point was not the VP workers are more inclined to use = explicit apomorphy-based definitions but that it is often clear that they = really have an apomorphy-based concept of certain clades even when they = define the names of those clades using other types of definitions! And = that's true for some of the clades of non-crown "birds," where node-based = definitions are used when the authors seem to have an apomorphy-based = concept of the clade they are intending to name. Jacques may be able to = provide more details on this. =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 Kevin de Queiroz Division of Amphibians & Reptiles National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560-0162 Phone: (202) 357-2212 FAX: (202) 786-2979 e-mail: dequeirk@nmnh.si.edu