Re: Phylogenetic taxonomic definitions in Xiaotingia paper

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

>  I do not want to get to the point as in when phylogenetics was
>  introduced to mammalian taxonomy, and every new "arrangement" --
>  excluding this or that taxon only from the _topology_ -- came with a
>  new name.

Oh, neither do I. That's the other extreme.

(Besides, it wasn't actually phylogenetic nomenclature. They didn't name 
clades, they named phylogenetic hypotheses.)

>  <Have you noticed how the term "birds" is used in the discussion
>  triggered by *Xiaotingia*? It's used as a branch-based name for
>  everything closer to Neornithes than to traditional non-birds like
>  velociraptorines, dromaeosaurines, troodontids, oviraptorosaurs and
>  the like. That's how the definition of Avialae by Xu et al. maps to
>  their tree. I think Aves should be defined that way (more carefully,
>  means, with more external specifiers); that's the closest thing to a
>  traditional meaning it has, and it literally means "birds" not just
>  in Latin, but also in (higher styles of) today's Spanish and
>  Portuguese.>
>
>  This supports the idea that "Aves" should always refer to the
>  esoteric "birds."

Well, if it doesn't (as far as possible), confusion will inevitably 
result, at least for a decade or three, and avoidable discontinuity with 
the literature will also result. Such outcomes should be avoided, and 
indeed the PhyloCode says so in several places.