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

Re: Archie the Dinosaur?



In a message dated 95-12-05 08:58:12 EST, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
writes:

>This is certainly a good possibility, and in my dissertation I hedged my
>bets and showed both alternative phylogenies (Saurischia v. Ornithischia and
>Theropoda v. Phytodinosauria).  However, no one has yet been able to
>demonstrate a monophyletic Phytodinosauria in a peer reviewed, published
>analysis, including some (Paul Sereno, for instance) who once supported the
>idea.

Michael Cooper, in his 1985 study of _Kangnasaurus coetzeei_, published an
analysis of the ornithischians in which he established a monophyletic
Phytodinosauria, only he called it Ornithischiformes. I'm still on the fence
with which name to use: Phytodinosauria because it's more descriptive or
Ornithischiformes because it has priority. The ICZN code doesn't rule on taxa
at this level, so the choice is arbitrary.

I think Alan Charig and Jose Bonaparte both also support the idea of
ornithischians as highly derived "sauropodomorphs." Ornithischians had too
many fingers to be brought out of Aves at any level above Lagosuchia. There
are still possibilities below that.