> What I like of the definitions of Avepoda and some other Paulian
> names in "Dinosaurs of the Air" (2002) is the use of of
> apomorphy+clade-based taxon names. As long as the problem of
> apomorphy-based names was the possibility of convergence (and to
> what clade acquiring the feature the name goes), this was
> explicitly prevented in apomorphy+clade-based names. These seem to
> have great use, overall if the clade used is a LITU (is it right to
> call "clade" to a leaf?).
Clades can be terminal, yes. A clade is just an ancestor and all of
its descendants. If a taxonomic unit has no descendants, then it is
itself a clade.