[Taxacom] Question about "paleodicots"

[Ken Kinman]

     I don't understand why they would call it a neologism.  The Chase et 
al., 1993, paper coined the term as far as I know.  And it only took me two 
minutes on a google search for "paleodicots" to find it was used in Hanson 
et al., 2001---Annals of Botany, 88(5):851-858.  There are even more hits 
for the spelling palaeodicots, but don't have time to check to see if any 
are in print articles.

     They are far more often referred to as "basal dicots", which is what I 
called them here on Taxacom when I formally switched from 2 Classes to 3 
Classes of angiosperms in 2004.  However, I did refer to them at least once 
as paleodicots in a post here this past March (oddly the only hit I found in 
a search of the old taxacom archives).  I think the grouping is just more 
often referred to as basal dicots (especially in journal articles), but 
paleodicots is certainly NOT a neologism.
    ---Cheers,
            Ken Kinman

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us