[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

David Marjanovic wrote-

Well, people have been using Liliensternus as a non-coelophysid coelophysoid
for a while.

Really? Can't remember much of that.

Well, traditionally, Liliensternus was a halticosaurid instead of a coelophysid (Welles, 1984), and though Paul (1988) included it as a halticosaurine within Coelophysidae, he did the same for Dilophosaurus. It's excluded from Coelophysidae by Sereno (1999-2005), Rauhut (2003) and Tykoski and Rowe (2004).

For Hesperornis + Passer, I agree a name would be useful. But why bother
using Ornithurae there instead? It's no more the origin of the 'bird tail'
than (Passer <- Archaeopteryx) is.

It may be the origin of a narrowly defined "bird tail" like defined by Gauthier & friends.

No, because Apsaravis, Yixianornis and Hongshanornis all have that too. I say "screw etymology" when deciding where clade names belong.

There will be an extremely easy way to organize such things: priority is
based on the registration number and nothing else. So just register
*Archaeopterygiformes* a few seconds earlier.


Will this be extremely easy?  Has anyone looked into the issue and decided
on a hierarchy for potentially synonymous clades?


Erm...

It will be easy if all those names are registered by the same author(s). This, in turn, will be relatively easy if my proposal to the PhyloCode mailing list on averting the dangers of the Companion Volume gets through. Otherwise, it'll be a race -- first come, first served.

I don't share your optimism. I'm going to examine some topologies using Taxonsearch's active definitions and write a post on it which will show how much concern we need...

Mickey Mortimer