Re: Martin 2004 critique (somewhat lengthy)

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Phil Bigelow wrote-

> >  I
> > could cladistically define it as everything closer to rattus
> > norvegicus
> > than to megalosaurus, or whatever. Noone would use this definition,
> > as it
> > does not agree with any sensible concept of hominidae.)
>
> Your point is irrelevent to this discussion.
> The issue that *I* addressed is not whether any particular definition is
> "sensible" or not, but whether certain authors are aware of even the most
> WIDELY RECOGNIZED cladistic definitions.  Surely, sir,  you are not
> proposing that Martin is justified in ignoring Padian and May's
> definition?

I have to agree with Baeker.  I blame Martin for doing many things wrong,
but this isn't one of them.  Phylogenetic nomenclature, though popular in
some areas of biology, is not official even in the sense of the ICZN yet.
And Padian and May's definition of Dinosauria is but one of the several
currently published suggestions.  For instance, Clarke et al. (2004)
suggested (Megalosaurus bucklandii + Iguanodon bernissartensis), which is
better than Padian and May's in that it uses taxa which were part of
Dinosauria when the clade was named, and in that it uses species as
specifiers.  This would leave birds and maniraptorans out of Dinosauria in
Martin's phylogeny.  In fact, the Phylocode specifically uses defining birds
as dinosaurs as something that should NOT be done (Rec. 11A, example 1).
I'd bet Martin doesn't care about phylogenetic nomenclature, but in this
case his traditionalist ideas coincide with the most official formulation of
the principle.

Mickey Mortimer
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html