Message 2004-06-0022: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:54:27 -0700

[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - RE: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:54:27 -0700
From: Mickey Mortimer <>
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

How inefficient for those people subscribed to both lists. :-)

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   Thus, in my opinion, *Crocodilus niloticus* should be the anchor, as the
> type species of *Crocodilus* and the type "genus" of the including clades
> Crocodylidae, Crocodyloidea, Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, etc. Hell,
> use "Crocodilida."

I would agree with you here.

> << Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri +
> Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).>>
>   I wonder if we should be using *Archosaurus rossicus*? I know the name
> was coined post-Archosauria. Gauthier/deQuieroz/etal., guys should note
> the recommendation that the specifier for a clade, if named AFTER a taxon,
> should include that taxon. *Rhynchosaurus* should not be used, rather
> *Sphenodon,* since Rhynchocephalia was named to include IT, and it is not
> eponymous to *Rhynchosaurus.* That name should be used as the first
> internal anchor to Rhynchosauria, though, a subclade of Rhynchocephalia.

Rhynchocephalia (lepidosauromorphs) is not closely related to Rhynchosauria
(archosauromorphs).  I know this has confused me often enough.

> <<And isn't the type species of Stegosaurus S. armatus?  Why does he use
> S. stenops?  Wagner knows to use S. armatus.>>
>   Well, NO one should be using *S. armatus* since right now its mostly
> inside a mudstone block and half-prepared and has NEVER been described in
> detail or in use of comparative study. I would prefer resetting the type
> to *S. stenops,* but that may not be wise.

It's still unambiguously stegosaurian.

> <<Interestingly, Neornithischia seems to be the marginocephalian stem-
> Neornithischia: Clade (Triceratops horridus not Ankylosaurus magniventris,
> Stegosaurus stenops and Parasaurolophus walkeri)>>
>   I know Pete Buchholz doesn't like his paper and how it was published,
> but his "Chasmatopia" has been defined as the most inclusive stem for this
> clade. Looks like a typo. Neornithischia is also being used despite
> earlier use of Cerapoda [more elegant name, even] for the same clade
> Sereno originally used it for. I say fight for Cerapoda.

Great how Sereno names Cerapoda, then starts using Neornithischa instead,
isn't it?  I agree though, fight for Cerapoda.

> <<And Sereno's always right, of course, so let's define Heterodontosaurus
> to be an ornithopod!
>  Ornithopoda: Clade (Heterodontosaurus tucki and Parasaurolophus
> walkeri)>>
>   Ick. BIG ick. ICK. There....
>   If *H. tucki* is closer to marginocephalians than ornithopods, then
> Ornithopoda becomes a senior heterodefinitional synonym (as currently
> recognized) for both Cerapoda and Neornithischia. Double ick ... ICK ICK.

Well, Neornithischia can't include Parasaurolophus walkeri.  So if
Heterodontosaurus is closer to Triceratops than to Parasaurolophus, it would
|  `--Ankylosaurus
`--Ornithopoda (=Cerapoda)
   |  `--Parasaurolophus

Mickey Mortimer


Feedback to <> is welcome!