Undefined names

["Nick Gardner" <ratites637@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:
> I must yet again question this practice.  Compsognathidae isn't defined, 
> but
> we don't go putting it in quotes.  Nor are many families-  Ceratosauridae,
> Iliosuchidae, Dryptosauridae, Itemiridae

What is Itemirus anyway... I've heard suggestions from dromaeosaurid to 
tyrannosaurid...

> Coeluridae, Archaeornithoididae,
> Harpyimimidae, Garudimimidae, Deinocheiridae, Avimimidae, Caudipterygidae,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only published group for Caudipteryx, is 
not "Caudipterygidae", but instead, the poorly named "Caudipteriidae".

> Alxasauridae, Scansoriopterygidae, Archaeopterygidae, Yandangornidae,
> Omnivoropterygidae, every enantiornithine group except Euenantiornithes and
> Avisauridae.  The same goes for higher taxa.  Is Charadriiformes defined
> anywhere?  Is any modern bird order?  There are no rules for defining
> family-level taxa in the ICZN, and it doesn't cover higher taxa.  Virtually
> nothing is defined in accordance to Phylocode rules, which would only cover
> taxa defined on or after January 1 200x anyway.  There is no reason to
> recognize varying validity of names of higher taxonomic groups yet.

I agree.  Someone needs to publish and define a new name for the 
oviraptorosaur-segnosaur stem.  As asked earlier, is it possible to define a 
stem like this, Clade{Taxon A, Taxon B <-- Taxon C}?

Nick Gardner
aim s/n Eoraptor22

"Reasoning is never, like poetry, judged from the outside at all." - C.S. 
Lewis

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail