Re: VERY Stupid question, but I dont know the answer...

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:28:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, "T. Mike 
Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com> writes:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 NJPharris@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Also, if clades are going to be defined on anchors rather than apomorphies,
> > eponymous clade names are definitely the way to go.
> 
> Apomorphy-based clades still have a species specifier (the species which
> the ancestor must share the apomorphy with), so they can be eponymous as
> well.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that apomorphy-based clades couldn't have eponymous 
names, only that any descriptive name you give to a non-apomorphy-based group 
is highly likely to end up either containing taxa outside the group whose 
apomorphies are commemorated in the name (can't think of any examples off the 
top of my head) or to fail to include taxa who do share the apomorphies 
referred to by the name (a` la Tetrapoda). And who even knows about a group 
like Mammalia?  

So why bother with descriptive names? 

--Nick P.