Re: Many new references

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- Markus Moser <m.moser@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
[...]
> L. Salgado (2003): Should we abandon the name Titanosauridae? Some
> comments on the taxonomy of titanosaurian sauropods (Dinosauria). -
> Revista Española de Paleontología, 18 (1): 15-21, 1 fig.; Madrid.
> (28.2.2003).
> 
> -- After discussing historical confusion of "Definitions" and concepts
> of  the taxon Titanosauridae, Salgado proposes to define several taxa
> using PhyloCode principles, among these also some new taxa: Titanosauria
> (= Somphospondylia closer to Saltasaurus than to Euhelopus),
> Titanosauroidea (= Titanosauria closer to Saltasaurus than to
> Andesaurus), Andesauroidea nov. (= Titanosauria closer to Andesaurus
> than to Saltasaurus), Titanosauridae (node Epachthosaurus +
> Saltasaurus), Epachthosaurinae nov. (Titanosauridae closer to E. than to
> Saltasaurus), Eutitanosauria (Titanosauridae closer to Saltasaurus than
> to Epachthosaurus), Saltasaurinae (Eutitanosauria closer to Saltasaurus
> than to Opisthocoelicaudia), and Opisthocoelicaudiinae (Eutitanosauria
> closer to Opisthocoelicaudia than to Saltasaurus). Laplatasaurus is
> reinstated and includes L. araukanicus Huene, while Titanosaurus
> (indicus) is abandoned as there are 'no valid diagnostic characters'.

These definitions do *not* adhere to PhyloCode principles. We can overlook the
fact that they use genera instead of species for specifiers, since they cn
easily be replaced with the type species, but:

"11.8. In the interest of consistency with the preexisting codes, a clade whose
name is converted from a genus name under a preexisting code, or is derived
from the stem of a genus name, should include the type of the genus name.
Therefore, when a clade name is converted from a preexisting genus name or is a
new or converted name derived from the stem of a genus name, the definition of
the clade name must use the type species of that genus as an internal
specifier. 

"Recommendation 11.8A. If it is questionable whether a type species of a genus
is part of the clade to be named, then the type species should not be used as a
specifier (see Rec. 11B), and neither that genus name nor a name derived from
the stem of that genus name should be formally defined as referring to that
clade. 

"Recommendation 11.8B. If it is questionable whether the type specimen of a
preexisting name belongs to the clade to be named (e.g., because of the
fragmentary nature of the specimen), then that preexisting name (or its type)
should not be used as a specifier (see Rec. 11C), and the corresponding name
should not be converted to a clade name."

Thus, all the names based on _Titanosaurus_ (_Titanosauridae_,
_Titanosaurioidea_, _Eutitanosauria_, _Titanosauria_) must include _T. indicus_
(or a neotype species, if one is ever designated) as an internal specifier, or
the names should be abandoned.

I should probably read the paper, though....

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com