[Previous by date - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by date - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Previous by subject - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by subject - Re: Nomina Conversa]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:15:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Nomina Conversa
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: T. Mike Keesey <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: Nomina Conversa
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, David Marjanovic wrote:
> > (probably a good idea, since _Chelonia_ is a genus)
>
> Really!?!
Yes, type of _Cheloniidae_ (within _Testudines_, a.k.a. Order
Chelonia/Testudines/Testudinata)
> > Maybe I did see _Eureptilia_ before... anyway, seems like a preferable
> > name to me.
>
> I wouldn't want to have -reptilia again...
Got a better name? (Preferably something in the literature already.)
> > > Sauria (another yucky name -- it is neither meant to have its
> > > traditional paraphyletic meaning "lizards"
> >
> > Wasn't "Lacertilia" used for that group?
>
> Yes, as a synonym, seemingly based on personal preferences.
Oh, I never saw Sauria used for that. (But it makes sense.) So how did it
come to be appropriated for _Archosauromorpha_ + _Lepidosauromorpha_??
> > I would much prefer _Sauria_ to _Reptilia_. Birds are already
> > coelurosaurians, dinosaurians, and archosaurians; why not saurians as
> > well?
>
> True. This would, however, increase the confusion among German speakers, who
> often use "Saurier" as an abbreviation for "Dinosaurier" as well as as an
> artificial group that includes most or everything that contains -saur-, and
> it would have little to do with the original meaning of the word (Greek
> sauros = lizard).
I'm no native speaker like you, but it seems to me German speakers use it
just to mean "reptile", e.g., "Flugsaurier" (pterosaurs). "Saurian" is an
(infrequent) English vernacular term, too, meaning, basically,
"reptilian".
Name relevance isn't a crucial issue -- after all, _Basilosaurus_ is a
whale! Coherence with older literature should be important, though.
> > ??? What's the definition of _Teleostomi_?
>
> According to the Dinosauricon :-] , it includes Acanthodii and Osteichthyes
> as sister taxa...
I don't list a *definition*. Is it stem- or node-based?
> > It seems to me it would make
> > sense as a stem-based clade, perhaps sister to _Chondrichthyes_. I'm a
> > little ignorant about that part of the tree, though.
>
> So is everyone else. The Nature issue that contains the paper about the
> feathers of *Sinornithosaurus* has one about a basal sarcopterygian and
> mentions the general confusion about basal gnathostome phylogeny.
Surely extant chondrichthyans clade outside of bony gnathostomes?
> > What do you mean by "explicitly excluding"? I don't think anyone ever
> > suggested putting birds in Dinosauria (or Theropoda or Coelurosauria)
> > until the '70's.
>
> But since then many have done so, while mammals have AFAIK not been
> considered therapsids for so long. I don't know most of the cladistic
> literature on this, though.
In the cladistic literature they are considered therapsids.
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>