Re: Applying Sereno's definitions to Neotetanurae: Part 1 & 2

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>:

> B) In the end, though, we are still applying definition ideas on the basis of
> taxonomic baggage. If all taxa are equal, then there is no real issue (or
> should not be) if Oviraptoridae includes Tyrannosauridae, if they are so
> defined in a topology to be such. If this happens, the problem is not in the
> phylogeny or the application of the names, but in the philosophy of 
> what these
> -idae or -inae names would mean to us. This is unneccessary baggage that
> phylogenetic nomenclature would have us step away from.

With all respect to Jaime, I couldn't disagree more.  I think we can 
all agree that taxa do not have absolute ranks, but they do have 
relative ranks, and I think having a set of standardized nested clade 
suffixes is very useful.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath 
water.

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan