[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" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
To: Mailing List - Dinosaur <dinosaur@usc.edu>, Mailing List - PhyloCode <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Coelurosaur Phylogeny
[cross-posted to the PhyloCode List] --- Brad McFeeters <archosauromorph2@hotmail.com> 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 <keesey@bigfoot.com> =====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com> =====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com> =====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze> ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com