Re: Meet me & see my website

[Steven Mahon <floridamahon@yahoo.com>]

--- Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
wrote:
> Thomas Holtz wrote-
> 
> > > And, since
> > > Enigmosauria isnt defined (correct me if I'm
> wrong
> > > again) but shouldn't it go in quotes?
> >
> > Yes!!
> 
> 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,
> Coeluridae, Archaeornithoididae,
> Harpyimimidae, Garudimimidae, Deinocheiridae,
> Avimimidae, Caudipterygidae,
> 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.

This is just a wish of mine, but I think that families
Should be defined but by a certain # of
characteristics, so that it would easier to see the
close evolutionary history genera have with one
another. I know that sounds dumb, but oh well....
> 
> Mickey Mortimer
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com