On 6/2/06, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree. It is not the fault of either the _Ceratops_ or _Titanosaurus_ type material that their significance was eclipsed by later discoveries. But if we want stability in phylogenetic usage, then we should be anchoring our clades in the genera that we name them after. (This only applies to family-level clades.)
Is the parenthetical statement to suggest that higher clades like Titanosauria should be kept?
-- Andreas Johansson
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?