Message 2001-06-0019: Re: Fwd: Vermes

Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:21:39 -0400 (EDT)

[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" <>
To: -PhyloCode Mailing List- <>
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)?

 Home Page               <>
  The Dinosauricon        <>
   personal                <> --> <>
    Dinosauricon-related    <>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>


Feedback to <> is welcome!