Re: Therizinosauria Cladogram

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> "Therizinosaurs include six described genera (_Alxasaurus_,
> _Enigmosaurus_, _Erlikosaurus_, _Nashiungosaurus_ [sic], _Segnosaurus_,
> and _Therizinosaurus_) of bipedal theropods ... Therezinosaurs [sic] may
> be described as the aforementioned taxa and all others closer to them than
> to oviraptorosaurs, ornithomimids, and troodontids."
>
> Could have been a bit better worded, maybe, but it's still a phylogenetic
> definition. None exist for Segnosauria.

Now we can argue that it is just a _suggestion_ for a _future_ definition
("_may_ be described")...

> Filtered through the rules of the draft PhyloCode (in which specifiers
> must be species or specimens,

true

> stem-based definitions may only have a
> single internal specifier,

Wrong, see http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art11.html Art. 11.9 Example 3:
"If a name is defined through a stem-based definition with more than one
internal specifier, and one internal specifier is later found to be more
closely related to the external specifier than to the other internal
specifier, the definition does not apply to any clade." Such definitions
have the potential to self-destruct, but they are allowed.

> and eponyms should be used as internal
> specifiers), this would render:

true

BTW, I think you shouldn't use "implied in" statements in the Dinosauricon,
because the PhyloCode makes not the slightest mention of this possibility.
But I've seen things like "Rauisuchia tax. nov. _nom. transl. ex_
Rauisuchidae name, year", IIRC. (Don't know whether this example is
correct.)