Message 2004-06-0037: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:45:26 +0200

[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - Re: Pan-clades, good or bad?]
[Previous by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:45:26 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <>
To: PML <>
Cc: DML <>
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:10 AM

> <<Rhynchocephalia Guenther 1867 = Apomorphy (1st lepidosaur with Sphenodon
> punctatus' premaxillary chisels).>>
>   Actually, this is ambiguous. The shape of the crowns in *Scaphonyx,* for
> example, are unlike those of the tuatara, as also in *Mesosaurus.*

For a long time, the rhynchosaurs (such as *Scaphonyx* and *Mesosaurus*)
were thought to be rhynchocephalians (a name coined for *Sphenodon*). One or
two decades ago this has turned out to be erroneous; unlike
Rhynchocephalia/Sphenodontida, Rhynchosauria belongs to Archosauromorpha.

> <<Crurotarsi Sereno and Arcucci 1990 = Apomorphy (1st archosaur with
> Caiman crocodilus' fully rotary, hemicylindrical, fibulocalcaneal
> crurotarsal articulation).>>
> [...]
>   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."

In accordance with Art. 11.8.

> Actual respect to why the element is referred to as "cross-ankle"

It isn't. Crus = lower leg/shin; declension: cruris, cruri, crurem,
crure...; crux = cross, declension: crucis, cruci, crucem, cruce... -- IMHO
the name makes quite good reference to the fact that in this clade('s known
members) the calcaneum (part of the ankle) is functionally not a part of the
lower leg, as usual, but of the foot.

>   *Draco*? *Lacerta.* It's called Lacertilia for a reason, not "Dracia."
>   *Chelonia*? *Testudo.* It's called Testudines (or Testudinata, take your
> pick) for a reason. Chelonida has been used as a slightly different clade,
> but almost interchangeably. Depends on the accepted main specifier.

Never seen Chelonida. Chelonomorpha is/was used by those few who want to
have turtles (without other anapsids) as a reptilian subclass. But I agree
that *Testudo* is historically much better suited as a specifier.

> David:
> <I'd like a solution similar to *Sauropoda* -- *Eusauropoda* --
> *Neosauropoda*, *Theropoda* -- "Eutheropoda" -- *Neotheropoda* and *Aves*
> --  *Euornithes* -- *Neornithes*.>
>   There is no "Ornithes" ...

I know. But Greek ornithes and Latin aves mean the same.

> << Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri +
> Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).>>
>   I wonder if we should be using *Archosaurus rossicus*?

No. *Archosaurus* is derived from Archosauria (it's the oldest known, and
therefore the "primordial" and "archetypical", member), not the other way
around, therefore Art. 11.8 does not hold.

> 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,

but *Rhynchocephalia* is a member of *Lepidosauria*, not of
*Archosauromorpha*, see above.

> <Perhaps just to be really certain, so that the BANDits can't complain?>
>   Archosauria should only be anchored on living taxa, likely as a crown,
> as was and has been used since.

I disagree, see above. Use a crocodile, some nonavian dinosaur(s), and
perhaps some "thecodont(s)".

>   Indeed. Diapsida = ("separation of the quadratojugal, jugal,
> postorbital, and squamosal around a fenestra separate from the 'temporal'
> fenestra" in *Lacerta agilis*).

This would be the lower temporal fenestra. It would be more secure to use
the upper one, which you interestingly call "the 'temporal' fenestra".

> Of course, this is also probably a
> transformational suite for which the series is not well documented.

Either there is a hole, or there is none. Or so I think.

> The case seems to be wishy-washy for Ichthyopterygia.

Which seemingly belongs to the diapsid crown-group.

>   Wow. The fossil lineage of neornitheans.... Aves should be used for the
> crown, and Neornithes the internal node for Palaeognathae + Neognathae (AS
> USED). Good lord. People want *Archaeopteryx* as a member of Aves too bad.

You have overlooked that (Palaeognathae + Neognathae) IS the crown-group!
Neornithes-Palaeognathae-Neognathae is a node-stem triplet, the
Palaeo-Neognathae split is _the_ basal split of the avian crown-group. -- If
you're incontent with Archie being a specifier for *Aves*, wait for the
stem-based definition I'll propose in my 5-minute talk about *Aves*.

> <<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.

Or we should just wait for the preparation and description!


Feedback to <> is welcome!