Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> As far as I understand, Euarchonta was named precisely *because* Archonta 
> was found to be polyphyletic. It was conceived as the monophyletic core of 
> what we used to think of as Archonta.

This strikes me as an oxymoron.  We don't have 'archontans' any more, but we 
still have the 'true archontans'....??!!  Similarly, if we have clade 
Euornithopoda without Ornithopoda, we would have 'true ornithopods' without 
the 'ornithopods'.  Hmm...

Really, is it THAT hard to come up with an original clade name that doesn't 
entail putting 'Eu-' or 'Neo-' onto a pre-existing name.  Use your 
imagination, people!  :-)

Mike Taylor wrote:

> Maybe we should be over on the PhyloCode list by this stage, but if the new 
> version of the Code really does mean to say things like "you should have 
> EuWHATEVER if there's no WHATEVER",

I gather you mean the Code says "you should NOT have EuWHATEVER if there's 
no WHATEVER".

> When changes in one taxon cause changes in another, something is badly 
> wrong.

This is fairly commonplace.  If one clade expands, it usually does so at the 
expense of another clade (which may even disappear altogether).  Further, if 
one clade was intended to be a subset of a higher clade (e.g., Euornithopoda 
within Ornithopoda), and this intent is actually reflected in the name, I 
can't fault the Code for wanting to make this permanent.

Cheers

Tim