Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae

To: DML <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:29:03 +0200
Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
In-reply-to: <COL107-W496297EB8FB94D26DB81D0AC1F0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT127-W356C1A95BFC39FB42F7B19E71F0@phx.gbl> <COL107-W496297EB8FB94D26DB81D0AC1F0@phx.gbl>
Reply-to: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

 There's nothing in the ICZN stating characters have to be
 morphological instead of phylogenetic.

:-o

You're right. Morphological characters are obviously intended, but, asso often in the ICZN, that's not spelled out!

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
  - From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>

References:
- Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
  - From: Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>
- RE: Kileskus and Proceratosauridae
  - From: Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>