[Previous by date - Re: Fwd: Re: IGNORE THAT LAST MESSAGE: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICL=]
[Next by date - Re: Lumping Spinosauridae Redux]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonym=]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:14:28 -0400
From: [unknown]
To: cantino@ohiou.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
Philip Cantino wrote - 9/18/04 7:05 PM: Magnoliophyta could be defined as applying to the panstem, but this= =3D20 would likely confuse people because Magnoliophyta and Angiospermae= =3D20 are widely understood by botanists to be alternative names for the= =3D20 same clade. The same applies to other pairs of typified versus=3D20 untypified names (e.g., Equisetophyta and Sphenophyta, Pinophyta and= =3D20 Coniferophyta, Lamiaceae and Labiatae). >While it's true that these names have traditionally been considered = to =3D refer to the same clades, an analogous situation existed in zoology w= ith =3D the names that someone (perhaps David Marjanovic) mentioned earlier (= e.g., =3D Anura and Salientia, Urodela and Caudata, Serpentes and Ophidia, Gymn= ophion=3D a and Apoda). We zoologists reassigned one name of each pair to the = crown =3D and the other to the panstem, and many people have found this change = =3D useful.< Kevin