[Previous by date - Re: Panstems]
[Next by date - Re: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PHYLOCODE: Article 10.2]
[Previous by subject - Re: Panstems]
[Next by subject - Re: Panstems]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:54:23 -0700
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Panstems
David Marjanovic wrote- > > Aves 1758 < Avemetatarsalia 1999. 241 > > (Perhaps I should mention that synonyms for Avemetatarsalia, like t= he > misnomer Ornithosuchia, come from the early 90s if not late 80s. Do= esn't > change much about the point, however.) True, but Ornithosuchia would be rejected by Phylocode anyway, as Ornithosuchus isn't a specifier, so I went with the next most recent = defined clade name. > > Which names have been > > associated with more clades than Mammalia, Reptilia and Aves? > > Reptilia has only been associated with one clade, AFAIK, but the ot= hers have > been attached to basically everything from panstem to crown. (Haven= 't there > even been attempts to exclude the monotremes from Mammalia?) Also perhaps true, though Reptilia has had numerous proposed usages o= ver the years- paraphyletic term for non-avian, non-mammalian amnoites; crown= for living reptiles, which includes birds; rejected outright due to its o= riginal paraphyletic nature; etc. Certainly more than Sauropsida, I would th= ink. Mickey Mortimer Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences University of Washington The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.= html