RE: Ichthyornis paper

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Christopher Taylor wrote:

>     The frontispiece is a reconstruction of _Ichthyornis_ based on the
> results of the paper.

I agree, it's a nice illustration.  I wouldn't have described the 
_Ichthyornis_ as "hover-feeding", though: its feet are in the water!

Overall, it makes *very* interesting reading.

> Note, however, that under the ICZN, the
> correct name for this species would be _I. anceps_, not _I. dispar_ - while
> _I. dispar_ is the type species of the genus, _anceps_ was named earlier,
> and so takes priority even though it was originally in a different genus.

Julia begs to differ, and gives her reasons on p.21.  Citing Article 67.2 of 
the ICZN and Article 11.8 of the draft PhyloCode, she claims that because 
_I. anceps_ was not one of the original nominal species of the genus 
_Ichthyornis_ (its original name was _Graculavus anceps_, before Marsh 
shifted it over to _Ichthyornis_), _I. dispar_ is the valid name of the 
single _Ichthyornis_ species, as well as the type species.

>     However, as far as I
> can see from a brief skim of the paper (so I may be missing something),
> there is nothing to directly say that it is *not* part of the crown.

Indeed, the featured cladograms put _Austinornis_ in an unresolved 
trichotomy with two extant galliform genera.

> In such
> a case, I personally would have preferred to call it 'Galliformes incertae
> sedis' and so avoid making a whole new name to keep track of

The Pan- prefix is mandated by the PhyloCode for stem clades.  Thus, the 
erection of Pangalliformes was inevitable.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963