Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble(typo fixed)

[tyazbeck@comcast.net]

Ok, I'll look up all this stuff tonight if I have time. Forgive me for being 
naive. I think this thread is going into a totally different direction. Could 
we change the subject title? And back to the topic of languages and taxonomy: I 
think Greek and Latin are still the best. Latin was basically the language of 
science until recently, and the tradition is better left unchanged. And I would 
like to stress that just because something is not scientific, doesn't mean it's 
wrong. I think the current combination of Linnean ranks/binomials and 
phylogenetic nomenclature (approximated to match the ranks, and the ranks {with 
valuable morphologic details} roughly corresponding to actual groups) works 
fine. I'm not really a professional (yet), though, but  thats my 2 cents.


From: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> 
To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:55:21 PM 
Subject: Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS silly ramble(typo fixed) 

>  God, this all sounds like a revolution is brewing! So are we going to 
>  use combiinations of numbers rather than acual names in the future? 

>  then how do you talk about them? 

Most existing names will simply stay. Really, both of you, read the 
PhyloCode. 

I hope to update the Wikipedia article on phylogenetic nomenclature soon.