Corpus ID: 28135217

Feathered Dinosaurs, Flying Dinosaurs, Crown Dinosaurs and the Names "Aves"

@inproceedings{Gauthier2001FeatheredDF,
  title={Feathered Dinosaurs, Flying Dinosaurs, Crown Dinosaurs and the Names "Aves"},
  author={J. Gauthier and K. Queiroz},
  year={2001}
}
The taxon name “Aves” is currently used for several different clades, a situation that violates the fundamental nomenclatural principle that, to minimize ambiguity, each taxon name should refer to a single taxon. To clarify this situation, we explore some general issues concerning the properties of the three classes of phylogenetic definitions, including: how names can be tied to clades through composition or characters; the relationships between “total” and “crown” compared to “stem” and “node… Expand

Figures from this paper

Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta
TLDR
Criteria and approaches used here to choose among competing preexisting names for a clade, to select a definition type, to choose appropriate specifiers, and to restrict the use of a name to certain phylogenetic contexts may be widely applicable when naming other clades. Expand
Optimality of phylogenetic nomenclatural procedures
  • O. Bethoux
  • Biology
  • Organisms Diversity & Evolution
  • 2010
TLDR
The present contribution suggests that the cladotypic procedure outperforms all other proposed procedures, producing an optimal formal lexicon useful for naming and communicating about species and taxa. Expand
Stability, ranks, and the PhyloCode
TLDR
Phylogenetic nomenclature does not force one to officially name poorly corrobo− rated groupings, whereas Linnean codes compel users to erect and name genera even when relevant supraspecific re− lationships are poorly known. Expand
phylOgeNeTIC NOmeNCl aTURe Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta
TLDR
Some groups of organisms will be better represented in this book than others because of the availability of well-supported phylogenies and knowledgeable systematists who are interested in contributing to the phylogenetic nomenclature of their specialty groups. Expand
DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF RANK-BASED TAXON NAMES TO PHYLOGENETICALLY DEFINED CLADE NAMES, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY TURTLES
TLDR
This work may provide a useful road map to those intent on converting their traditional rank-based nomenclatures to explicitly phylogenetic nomenClatures under the precepts of the PhyloCode. Expand
Are the linnean and phylogenetic nomenclatural systems combinable? Recommendations for biological nomenclature.
TLDR
It is seen as essential that species binomen, including the formal rank of genus, are retained, and species should continue to be linked to type specimens and the use of other formal ranks should be minimized. Expand
Phylogenetic definitions in the pre-PhyloCode era; implications for naming clades under the PhyloCode
TLDR
Five principles are suggested to guide the interpretation of pre-Phylo code clade-names and to inform the process of naming clades under the PhyloCode: do not recognize “accidental” definitions; malformed definitions should be interpreted according to the intention of the author when and where this is obvious. Expand
Phylogenetic nomenclature, hierarchical information, and testability.
TLDR
It is argued here that the information in rank-signifying endings is limited, so that any loss of such information necessitated by the current version of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (hereafter, the PhyloCode) would not be a great hindrance to science. Expand
Should paleontologists use “phylogenetic” nomenclature?
Thanks to the Linnaean system of Biological Nomenclature systematics these days is an ordered discipline. Debates over specifics still abound, but there is little argument that taxonomy shouldExpand
Toward an integrated system of clade names.
TLDR
An integrated system of clade names is described based on categories of clades defined with respect to lineages that have survived to the present time, which has several advantages, including the facilitation of communication among biologists who study distantly related clades and promoting a broader conceptualization of the origins of distinctive clades of extant organisms. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 130 REFERENCES
Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria (Theropoda)
TLDR
The new node-based name Eumaniraptora is proposed to refer to the most recent common ancestor of Deinonychus and Neornithes and all descendants of that ancestor. Expand
Stability in meaning and content of taxon names: an evaluation of crown-clade definitions
  • Michael S. Y. Lee
  • Biology
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
  • 1996
TLDR
There is no compelling reason to radically redefine familiar taxon names such as Aves, Mammalia and Tetrapoda to apply to ‘crown-clades’: monophyletic groups bounded by extant forms, and it is possible to attach such well-known taxonNames to more-inclusive groups that closely approximate ‘traditional’ usage. Expand
Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names
Defining the names of taxa in terms of common ancestry, that is, using phylogenetic definitions of taxon names, departs from a tradition of character-based definitions by granting the concept ofExpand
Replacement of an Essentialistic Perspective on Taxonomic Definitions as Exemplified by the Definition of “Mammalia”
TLDR
The replacement of an essentialistic perspective on the definitions of "Mam? malia" and other taxon names by a more nominalistic one is associated with the development of a phylogenetic perspective on biological nomenclature and represents an important step in theDevelopment of a more broadly scientific approach to that subject. Expand
APPLICATION OF PHYLOGENETIC TAXONOMY TO POORLY RESOLVED CROWN CLADES : A STEM-MODIFIED NODE-BASED DEFINITION OF RODENTIA
Phylogenetic taxonomy (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, 1992) entails the naming of clades, a procedure distinct from and sec? ondary to the process of clade recognition. Current procedures forExpand
AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS
TLDR
The importance of the critical fossils seems to reside in their relative primitive‐ness, and the simplest explanation for their more conservative nature is that they have had less time to evolve. Expand
The phylogenetic position of the Tyrannosauridae; implications for theropod systematics
TLDR
The inclusion of the Tyrannosauridae within Maniraptora suggests a major adaptive radiation of coelurosaurs within Cretaceous Asiamerica comparable to contemporaneous radiations in various herbivorous dinosaurian clades. Expand
Phylogenetic taxonomy–some comments
TLDR
Some of the practical issues in a phylogenetic taxonomy are focused on, and some alternative solutions to problems acknowledged in previous papers are suggested. Expand
Dinosaur polyphyly and the classification of Archosaurs and birds
TLDR
A new classification of archosaurs and birds is presented, wherein the theropod ancestors of birds are transferred to the class Aves while all other dinosaurs are retained in the reptilian subclass Archosauria, which places full emphasis on the dinosaurian ancestry of birds but still manages to retain the stability of conventional classifications. Expand
CHAPTER 3 – CROWN-CLADES, KEY CHARACTERS AND TAXONOMIC STABILITY: WHEN IS AN AMNIOTE NOT AN AMNIOTE?
TLDR
This chapter explores Crown–Clades, key characters, Taxonomic stability, and what makes an Amniote, and the crown–clade definition of Amniota is found to be much more precise than the Apomorphy-based approach. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...