[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino Notes
<<But then again, if you agree that Saurischia is not an exclusively
monophyletic group and that Dinosauria should really consist of
Theropoda + Phytodinosauria as I do; then having armor as a
primitive feature of the Phytodinosauria takes away the need for an
armor butt-ed dinosaur ancestor (though I think that the first
dinosaurs were armor butt-ed).>>
Ay! Don't you hate it when you get off-line and turn the computer off
and realise that your last post made absolutely no sense at all?
I meant to say that in my opinion, Saurischia is a parataxonomic
name equal to Dinosauria - Ornithischia. I _really_ dislike
parataxonomic names. I have a feeling that Protoceratopidae as
most people see it (including Leptoceratops and Protoceratops) is a
parataxonomic name equal to Neoceratopia - "Ceratopidae;" and
should be split into the Leptoceratopidae and Protoceratopidae.
Also, in my opinion, I think that Ceratopidae should be broken into
the families Chasmosauridae, Centrosauridae, and Triceratopidae. I
hope this clears things up.
Peter "There is no 's' in Ceratopian or any derivative thereof"
Why is murder now legal in the State of California?