[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 <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Cc: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com> 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. http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art11.html > 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!