RE: Fw: synapsids are reptiles

["Tracy L. Ford" <dino.hunter@cox.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
Jaime A. Headden
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:22 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: dinogeorge@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fw: synapsids are reptiles

George Olshevsky (dinogeorge@aol.com) wrote:

<It does exist. It was proposed as a justifed emendation as long ago as
Steel, 1969.>

  So does the Martill and Frey, 1996 Manuraptora. It was justified, based
on the nature of the stem in use and its application: manus = manu- in the
appropriate tense. But this has received a renowned rejection on the basis
of issues of priority. It is no longer of ease of communication to
reformulate names because it has an extra letter than is logical, or the
wrong vowel in the right place.

  Ceratopia (I guess from Steel, 1969) is not justified though well-meant,
because it violates concepts of priority and favored use. Publication of
this term this way has followed very limitedly. Since, Makovicky, Sampson,
Forster, and Dodson, workers on these taxa, have not used the term, but
rather the original Cope monicker. I think a clear case of priority would
therefore reject Ceratopia Steel as an objective junior synonym of
Ceratopsia.<<
IMHO this is not a valid argument. Just because Everyone uses it doesn't
make it right. Just look at how many names have the wrong tense because they
us 'i' for an animal named for several different people than the correct
'orum'? You cause would make it wrong to correct it. Word tenses don't seem
to be a priority to many paleontologist, but that dose by no means make it
that they are correct and shouldn't be told that it's wrong.

  In this way, stems follow the structure of Ceratopsidae, not *Ceratops,*
except where originally used by Cope and Marsh, as a result of the
formulation of the etymology. Hence, the given stem for ceratopsian clades
has become Ceratops-, as in:<<
Like is said, if they got it wrong tense wise, and they did, dose not mean
it shouldn't be corrected. IT does need to be corrected and it should be
corrected regardless of the 'popular' uses. Also then the correct usage of
Family: EOBRACHYOPIDAE Shishkin, 1964, ORDER: BRACHYOPOMORPHA WARREN &
MARSICANO, 2000, SUBORDER: BRACHYOPOIDEA ROMER, 1947, Superfamily:
BRACHYOPOIDEA Save-Soderbergh, 1935, is wrong? If the terms for this usage
is correct, then all the other families need to be corrected, you can't have
it both ways.

  >>[Ceratops]omorpha
  [Ceratops]oidea
   Proto[ceratops]idae
   Lepto[ceratops]idae
   Archaeo[ceratops]idae
   Neo[ceratops]ia<
Ceratopmorpha,
Ceratopoidea
Protoceratopidae
Leptoceratopidae
Archaeoceratopidae
And
Neoceratopia,
THIS is the correct usage and should be use, but what others do is up to
them, and I'll leave it at that.  I will do my best to remember to correct
the names and not use the 's'.

Tracy L. Ford