Re: Coelurosaur phylogeny

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

>   One is free to use or not use any name, definition, diagnosis, or
> content of any taxon, or even any system to method of deriving
> relationships, theories on taxa, etc., as a matter of choice. However, if
> one so chooses, one is outre and no longer working in the system one
> professes to advocate. It becomes a "what feels good to me" system and
> only panders to ego. I won't use *Velociraptor* but rather *Googoo*
> because I don't like -raptor names; the new name is not a -raptor name, as
> is obvious. This method plays right into the cited statement, and is the
> major reason (lack of consistency and applicability between works) that
> the majority, if not ALL taxonomists, adopt these "rules" and
> "recommendations." If one chooses to advocate a particular system, say
> Phylogenetic taxonomy or the rules of reflecting family-level taxa or
> lower taxa of the ICZN, one should not then decided as a hypocrite to not
> do so further. One goal of the PhyloCode Group is to make all taxa equal,
> and the rules logically apply to all. This is something de Quieroz and
> Gauthier et al. have been working on, have published on, and for the most
> part most taxonomists agree upon. If one discards the rules, one is no
> longer a contributor in the system. One can apply the recommendations, if
> one chooses, now, to make the system work.

If the system one professes to advocate (eg. ICZN) does not cover a set of
taxa (eg. higher than family-level), then you can not work in the system
when dealing with those taxa.  Does ICZN even have rules governing the
validity of taxa higher than genus based on the extensiveness of their
definition?  Applying the rules for genera and species wouldn't makes much
sense (need for illustration, holotype, etc.) and leaves out any sort of
definition, which most workers find important.  If you wanted to advocate
Phylocode now to determine which taxa were valid, virtually nothing would
count because most published definitions are phrased slightly incorrectly.
Ironically, some of the only valid definitions (in Gauthier and de Queiroz,
2001) published so far are not accepted by most workers.

Mickey Mortimer