[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