Message 2006-01-0002: Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_

Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:31:08 +0100 (MET)

[Previous by date - PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_]
[Next by date - PhyloCode: How much will the Committee have to do?]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Re: Sereno05]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_]

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:31:08 +0100 (MET)
From: [unknown]
To: dinosaur@usc.edu, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: Senter, 2005 and the definition of _Aves_

> Senter's recent paper on archosaurian phylogenetic taxonomy makes t=
he
> following claim:
>
> "If the PhyloCode is published, gains acceptance, and continues to
> recognize apomorphy-based phylogenetic definitions, the valid
> phylogenetic definition of Aves will be the apomorphy-based definit=
ion
> of Charig (1985), which ties the name Aves to the origin of feather=
s."
> (2005:4)

Untrue, because:

> Senter is invoking the draft PhyloCode's rules on precedence (Art.
> 12), but it seems to me that he is overlooking Articles 7.1 and 7.2=
 of
> the draft PhyloCode:

This is obviously the case.

> Furthermore, Charig's definition doesn't tie the character to a
> particular specimen or species, so it seems to me that the form is
> invalid, anyway.

Of course.

> Would PhyloCode accept Charig's definition even if it
> did cover unregistered taxa published before its starting date?

I can't imagine it.

I conclude that Senter does absolutely great phylogenetics, but not
nomenclature -- he seems not to have read the PhyloCode, at least not=
 the
whole thing.

--=20
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!