Re: FAQ: Dinosaur Classification Overview

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

David,
    I do not like defining taxa by anchoring (Aves is a rare exception, but 
only because it promotes stability and continuity by using Archaeopteryx as 
an anchor)   But since PhyloCode is coming (like it or not), I would 
personally like to see Dinosauria anchored on Eoraptor (as well as an 
ornithischian and a saurischian).
    We had an extensive discussion about PhyloCode with Phil Cantino on 
TAXACOM back in October.  Made some progress, but I fear the results were 
somewhat like putting a band-aid on a gapping wound needing 30 stitches (but 
even a little progress is better than none).  However, I am looking forward 
to reading Cantino's response (which will hopefully be out by spring) to 
Mike Benton criticism of PhyloCode.  Not very optimistic about it or 
PhyloCode, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised (knocking on wood, 
crossing my fingers, and hoping for the best).
                          --------Ken
********************************************************
David Marjanovic wrote:
> In which case they aren't dinosaurs at all, because dinosaurs are defined
> node-basedly. BTW, this opinion seems to have become quite rare in the last
> few years. For example, it has turned out that 2 sacral vertebrae, not 3,
> are plesiomorphic for dinosaurs.
>
> P. S.: You might like to join the PhyloCode mailing list where people like
> HP Jonathan R. Wagner, Kevin de Queiroz and Philip Cantino discuss how the
> current draft of the PhyloCode could/should be improved...
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com