[Previous by date - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by date - Highly imprecise name uses in a neontological paper]
[Previous by subject - Re: crown clade convention (long)]
[Next by subject - Re: current usage (blunt talk)]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:50:10 -0400
Subject: Re: crown clade convention (long)
The Pan- names are primarly for paleontologists. The neontologists w= ould =3D almost never use them. However, since these names are formed from fr= om =3D well known names using a standard convention, they are almost as reco= gnizab=3D le as the well known names! Kevin >>> "Jaime A. Headden" <email@example.com> - 10/20/04 4:17 PM >>> David Marjanovic wrote: <<- Neotetrapoda is not widely known. I am certain that by far most o= f those neontologists simply don't know it exists.>> to which Kevin de Queiroz (Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU) replied: <That's exactly the problem! They're not going to use poorly known n= ames if they want people to read their papers.> Like Panaves? Pantetrapoda? Pansynapsida? Pantheropsida? Eventually someone will suggest that the absolute total-content clade better corresponds to use of the vernacular usually applied to crown groups,= and for just such a reason as that cited above.