RE: Ornithodiran phylogeny - a graphical approach

[mike@miketaylor.org.uk (Mike Taylor)]

FFS, Tim, I said this was OFF-LIST.

The rest of you, please ignore this as best you can.  Let's all
pretend it never happened.

 _/|_    ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Make the magic happen sooner" -- Terry Cox's guideline for
         writing fiction.



Tim Williams writes:
 > 
 > >Well, sure.  But I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I
 > >actually _said_, namely that _G._ has not AFAIK _every_ been used in
 > >the literature except by people raising the name.  And that neither of
 > >the publications that did that were peer-reviewed, so no use of the
 > >name whatsoever has ever made it through review.
 > 
 > Oh, I see what you were getting at.  I thought you were disputing the 
 > nomenclatural validity of _Giraffatitan_ by claiming the name wasn't 
 > published properly.
 > 
 > >I hope I didn't!  What I hope I convinced you of is that there is no
 > >_published_ reason to consider _brancai_ generically separate from
 > >_altithorax_.
 > 
 > Yes, Greg Paul jumped the gun, and Olshevsky just blindly followed his lead 
 > without corroborating GSP's conclusions.
 > 
 > >Please don't quote me on this, but I think they _are_
 > >separate, and hope to show this in print in the not-too-distant
 > >future.
 > 
 > Look forward to it.  I'll keep it to myself until then.
 > 
 > >Unfortunately, that means GSP's butt-ugly name will have to
 > >survive (and, no, I don't like being the instrument of that!)
 > 
 > Yeah, that's unfortunate.  There's no way around that I'm afraid.  GSP 
 > pinned the name _Giraffatitan_ to a great specimen, and it's now set in 
 > stone.
 > 
 > Cheers
 > 
 > Tim
 > 
 >