Message 2004-06-0018: Fw: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:18:27 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting, second circular]
[Next by subject - Fw: Gender of species names?]

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:18:27 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Fw: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:07 AM

> Tim Williams wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Just why are dinosaurs constrained as archosaurs?  And why not use
> > >Megalosaurus bucklandii instead?
> >
> > _Megalosaurus bucklandii_ might be a nomen dubium.  Rauhut seems to
think
> > so.  It's probably a bad idea using nomina dubia as specifiers, so I can
> > see why _M. bucklandii_ might have been shoved aside.
> >
> > >I'll be using Wagner's definition- Ornithopoda: Clade (I.
bernissartensis
> > >not A. magniventris, S. armatus, or C. montanus)
> >
> > ... _Ceratops montanus_ is probably a nomen dubium.
>
> But why does it matter as long as they are definitely part of the defined
> clade?  Megalosaurus is definitely theropod, even if you can't find
> apomorphies in the holotype.  And Ceratops is definitely ceratopsian.
>
> [...]
>
> > I agree with you reservations regarding apomorphy-based definitions.  I
am
> > especially worried about definitions that incorporate a specific
> > behavior -
> > such as powered flight.  This could be contentious for the definition of
> > Avialae.  Does the "phugoid gliding" posited by Chatterjee and Templin
for
> > _Archaeopteryx_ qualify as "powered flight?  And already some folks are
> > arguing that _Microraptor_ could probably fly as well as (or as badly
as)
> > _Archaeopteryx_....
>
> And why the emphasis on feather evolution?  Avefilopluma, Avepluma,
> Averemigia, Avepinna, Aveplumosa...  These things aren't preserved often,
> people!
> I could make a more utilitarian nomenclature based on anterior trochanter
> morphology...
> Alitrochanterica- (taxa with wing-like anterior trochanter homologous with
> Allosaurus fragilis)
> Altitrochanterica- (taxa with anterior trochanter that extends proximally
to
> be subequal in height to the greater trochanter homologous with
Deinonychus
> antirrhopus)
> Subankylotrochanterica- (taxa with at least partial fusion of the anterior
> trochanter and greater trochanter homologous with Deinonychus antirrhopus)
> Ankylotrochanterica- (taxa with a trochanteric crest homologous with
Vultur
> gryphus)
> And you could actually assign  >50% of Mesozoic taxa to these clades, as
> opposed to the <1% for feather-based clades.
>
> I should join the Phylocode Mailing List just to complain.
>
> Mickey Mortimer


  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!