Message 2003-05-0001: Re: Coelurosaur Phylogeny

Mon, 05 May 2003 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT)

[Previous by date - =3D?gb2312?q?_3000=3DCD=3DF2=3DD3=3DCA=3DCF=3DE4=3DB5=3DD8=3DD6=3DB7=]
[Next by date - spam reduction]
[Previous by subject - Re: Codes]
[Next by subject - Re: Crown clade definitions (was: Re: interesting style of definition)]

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <>
To: Mailing List - Dinosaur <>, Mailing List - PhyloCode <>
Subject: Re: Coelurosaur Phylogeny

[cross-posted to the PhyloCode List]

--- Brad McFeeters <> wrote:
>  >_Therizinosauria_ (well, "therezinosaurs [sic]") was defined as
>  >"_Alxasaurus_, _Enigmosaurus_, _Erlikosaurus_, _Nashiungosaurus_ [sic],
>  >_Segnosaurus_, and _Therizinosaurus_ ... and all others closer to them than
>  >to oviraptorosaurs, ornithomimids, and troodontids." This takes a 
>variety of
>  >possible positions into account.
>  Does it matter that Nanshiungosaurus was misspelled?  What happens if the
>  name "Nashiungosaurus" is later given to a non-therizinosaurian taxon?

Hmmm... the draft PhyloCode doesn't seem to have any provisions for errors in
the definition (not that this definition [from 1997] is in accord with
PhyloCode rules -- all the specifiers, internal and external, would have to be
species [with citations] or specimens).

Good question! Seems like there should be some rule about making 
corrections to
typographical or citation errors in the definition.

=====> T. Michael Keesey <>
=====> The Dinosauricon <>
=====> BloodySteak <>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.


Feedback to <> is welcome!