Re: More phylogenetic taxonom (was Re: Def. of Ornithischia)

[Jeff Poling <jpoling@dinosauria.com>]

   Thanks for clearing it up.  Personally, I wouldn't have defined a clade
that way because a species being its own ancestor isn't intuitive (I'll have
to think hard on the subject, maybe it is but I've just never thought of it
that way before.  "I am my own grampaw..."  Name that singer.).

   Looks like I'll have to change the def. of a stem based clade in my
dictionary.  Somebody posted earlier to the list that stem based clades
don't include the common ancestor; at least one other person was as confused
as I....

   Looks like the only way to get rid of Ornithischia is through common usage.

   (I hear dissenters warming up in the wings.  I'll quote George Olshevsky
on this one:  nomenclature should serve science, not the other way around.
In this case, the nomen does not serve science as it is a big gonzo hook for
obfuscating creationists.  See "Dinosaurs and Evolution" page two if you
don't know what I'm talking about)

** Dinosauria On-Line. Home of THE DINOSTORE ** "Those who trade a        **
** (Dino stuff for sale), Jeff's Journal of  ** little freedom for a      **
** Dinosaur Paleontology, Jeff's Dinosaur    ** little security will soon **
** Picture Gallery, and The DOL Dinosaur     ** find they have none of    **
** Omnipedia. http://www.dinosauria.com      ** either." -- Jeff Poling   **