Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:45 PM

> I'm not sure I can agree with your position.  For example, I've got
> pretty bored of repeatedly writing "non-neosauropod sauropod"
> recently; wouldn't it be nice just to define Eosauropoda as the
> paraphyletic group (Sauropoda - Neosauropoda) and then just
> refer to eosauropods?

Then just do it: "For the purposes of this paper, we will define Eosauropoda 
as the paraphyletic group consisting of *Sauropoda* ([registration number]) 
minus *Neosauropoda* ([registration number])..." "...we find that, instead 
of being a basal macronarian, *Haplocanthosaurus* is actually an 
eosauropod." Nothing wrong with this. If you or others do this in several 
subsequent papers, the name might even take on a life on its own and enter 
the textbooks. You only cannot _register_ the name; it can't participate in 
the synonymy and homonymy games. That's all.

Phylogenetic nomenclature makes life easier. Honest! :-)