Re: Cladistic definitions of Dinosauria, Saurischia, Sauropodomorpha

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bigelow" <bigelowp@juno.com>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 1:49 PM

> But I think the Committee
> should have used a different example to make their point.

Please do suggest one. IMHO the PhyloCode needs more examples anyway.

> I like Padian and May's (1993) definition, not just because
> it appears to have date priority(?) over all other clade definitions,

Under the PhyloCode, there is no such thing as priority for names that 
haven't been validly published according to the PhyloCode. One prerequisite 
for that is to have been published _after_ the PhyloCode (or at the same 
time as it, means, in the Companion Volume).

> but also because it is "edgy" and current.

Definitions must not change*. Therefore they are supposed to be chosen in 
such ways that they won't need to be changed -- ever.

* There will be a possibility to appeal to the Committee to change 
definitions that have turned out to be unbearable. This will be pretty much 
the same as pledging for the conservation of a junior synonym or homonym 
under the current codes. In other words, they don't want to be flooded with 
work...

> > Owen 1842 (abridged): "This group ... is characterized by a large
> > sacrum composed of five ankylosed vertebræ of unusual construction
> > ...
> > ; by broad ... coracoids and long and slender clavicles, whereby
> > Crocodilian characters of the vertebral column are combined with a
> > Lacertian type of the pectoral arch; the dental organs also exhibit
> > the same transitional or annectent characters....

So he did not consider crocodiles to be lizards ( = Sauria)? Or did he?