[Previous by date - RE: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Next by subject - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Cc: Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com
Subject: Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?
Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote: <Synonymous with what? The only older sauropod genus from Early Cretaceous Europe is Pelorosaurus (assuming oxoniensis is made the neotype of Cetiosaurus by the ICZN), and it's not comparable AND from the Hastings Beds, not the Upper Weald Clay. I see no reason to assume Oplosaurus is a synonym of Pelorosaurus.> This is a quandary, eh? "Panoplosaurus," the sauropod stem, versus the taxon *Panoplosaurus,* it's pan-stem is "Panpanoplosaurus," and ... I notice a _weensy_ small problem here. Also noted: Pancrustacea exists, but it's the crustacean/insect "pan-stem," NOT the crustacean one. Gah, this only enforces my dislike of pan-stems. Cheers, ===== Jaime A. Headden Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it. "Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail