Re: [dinosaur] Party like it's 1758!

[Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>]

Paul P <turtlecroc@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Phylogenetic nomenclature has its own set of problems. For example, things 
> like "the clade originating in the most recent common
> ancestor of A and B" becomes a mess if A or B turns out not to belong to that 
> clade.

I thought, by definition, that A and B had to be part of the clade.

> And the termite example given in the press release in support of the 
> Phylocode is silly--termites could simply have been demoted to
> suborder or infraorder instead of family.

I'm entirely comfortable with this level of 'demotion'.  Elsewhere in
invertebrate paleontology, there are more extreme examples: whole
phyla (such as Pogonophora and Vestimentifera) have been 'demoted' to
'family' level (in this case Siboglinidae, within annelid worms).
Then again, I'd be quite happy to see all Linnaean ranks done away
with - which (as the press release makes clear) is the intention of
phylogenetic nomenclature.