Re: Giant birds

["T. Mike Keesey" <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>]

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 11/9/99 4:41:44 PM EST, tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu writes:
> 
> << Doesn't it makemore sense to prioritize by definition rather than name?
>  For example, I could claim Amniota is the correct name for Alvarezsauria
>  by redefining it to {_ALvarezsaurus_ > Neornithes, _Ornithomimus_}, just
>  as you claim AVes is the correct name for Ornithosuchia by redefining it
>  to {Neornithes > _Crocodylus_} >>
> 
> Priority pertains to names, not to definitions. In theory if not always in 
> practice, the first person to recognize a group gets eternal credit by having 
> his name for the group used forever, regardless of how that person may 
> originally have defined the group.

But if it's redefined, it's not the same group anymore.

> Maybe the solution to the difficulties is to have a new name for a
> group every time the group is redefined.

Then it's not really getting re-defined -- a new taxon is being defined.

--T. Michael Keesey
tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu | THE DINOSAURICON: http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/
AOL IM:  Ric Blayze | WORLDS:    http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/