[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Retaining Thecodontia as a good name

I'm still trying to fix the inappropriately rejected messages problem.
In the mean time, though, I'm still having it.  While I'm here, let me
also mention that it looks like the majority of the vocal people on
the list want things to stay as they are with regard to moderation.
That said, let me throw in my two cents worth...  let's try to keep
the UFO stuff off the list.  If someone brings up such a subject,
please either ignore it or write only to the author of the original
message.  Thanks! -- MR

Oh yeah, what brought me here:

  Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 13:18:12 -0400
  From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
  To: swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com, dinosaur@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu
  Subject: Re: Retaining Thecodontia as a good name

  In a message dated 95-08-30 12:24:27 EDT, swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM
  (Stan Friesen) writes:

  > By the way, Dr Olshevsky, did you intend to include the
  > crocodilians in the thecodonts, as your definition implied?

  Absolutely. Crocodylia is one of about a half-dozen orders within
  Thecodontia; extant crocodylians may be viewed as the only surviving
  thecodontians. Incidentally, if you want to make Thecodontia a
  monophyletic subclade of Archosauria, you can simply remove a few
  basal groups from the paraphyletic Thecodontia I described. Then it
  becomes essentially congruent to Crocodylotarsi--and has historical
  priority, too.
  The real historically mishmashed group is not so much Thecodontia as