Message 2001-03-0022: Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs

Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:09:45 -0800 (PST)

[Previous by date - Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs]
[Next by date - Prototypes for Next Low-Bandwidth Version of the Dinosauricon]
[Previous by subject - Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs]
[Next by subject - Re: Mention of the Phylocode]

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:09:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Subject: Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs

Mike Keesey ( wrote:

<That has to be monophyletic. I'm guessing you wanted to add a
qualifying clause that excludes _Crocodylia_? Also, _Rauisuchia_
includes _Crocodylia_! _Rauisuchidae_ is probably what you
wanted, although, per the draft PhyloCode, species or specimens
should be used as specifiers: Clade(_Rauisuchus_ +
_Aetosaurus_), provided that _Crocodylus_ does not fall within
the clade. (I'm using genera as a shorthand for their type

  Your monophyletic could be my paraphyletic. Clades are
established as needed on the _chance_ they are monophyletic, and
established as such. By definition, all nodes are monophyletic,
and ( *Aetosaurus* + *Rauisuchus* ) will always be monophyletic,
but this is presently probably just Suchia at the moment, by
content. Anyways, type species are the benchmark of "praenomina"
or "genera" or whatever they are, so they are assumed to be

  David Marjanovic ( wrote:

<<Predentata is incorrect anyway, I'd say, it should be

<Then why isn't it called a "praedentary" bone?>

  Proper Latin suggests "prae-" for common "pre-" in taxonomic
usage, whatnot. The term "predentary" was coined before the name
"Predentata" was, and one was used as the basis of the other.
Any use of the term "Praedentata" will ignore priority of usage,
not to mention the fact that Ornithischia has much more
prevalent usage, inferrence, and priority, etc. So it's much of
a moot point. I doubt the Code should be looked at as a means to
get anyone's favorite usage or name, because they think it's
more suitable to our concepts. Concept-driven names can be given
concrete form, as can other usage, but priority in the
literature where content is clear and is not based on a concept
of usage (example: "I want to use the name *Griphornis* because
*Archaeopteryx* cannot possibly be a bird, and to suggest it has
feathers is like....," etc.) is [or should be] the primary
criterion in use of a name or definition.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.

Feedback to <> is welcome!