Re: Therizinosauria Cladogram

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, David Marjanovic wrote:

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

True, but it's more than exists for Segnosauria.

> > 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.

Whoops! Well, that yields a rather verbose definition, then....

> 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.)

Yes, I do it now more as a nod to the ICZN and traditional taxonomy.

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>