[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