[Previous by date - Fwd: Vermes]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Vermes]
[Previous by subject - Re: Fwd: Species and genus names [was: RE: Genus names]]
[Next by subject - Re: Fwd: Vermes]
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Vermes
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Philip Cantino wrote:
> If I interpret correctly what Mike is saying, I think both of his
> suggestions are already covered by Recommendation 10A. The first
> sentence of Rec. 10A ("Clade names should be selected in such a way
> as to minimize disruption of current usage") addresses Mike's concern
> about conversions that drastically change membership. The rest of
> 10A recommends the use of a preexisting name for the clade to be
> named rather than adopting (with expanded membership) a preexisting
> name of a paraphyletic group stemming from the same ancestor as the
> clade to be named. I think this is the same thing that Mike is
> suggesting.
Whoops! You're correct. I've read the code through a couple times, but
apparently that wasn't enough....
Anyway, wouldn't this recommendation probably go against the "cladization"
of _Reptilia_ and _Osteichthyes_? And wouldn't it definitely advocate
usage of _Theropsida_ and _Neotheropsida_ over _Synapsida_ and
_Therapsida_ (respectively)?
_____________________________________________________________________________
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>