[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A few more...
In a message dated 95-09-29 13:05:36 EDT, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)
>>In a message dated 95-09-28 13:58:31 EDT, Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu
>>>Actually, Gauthier already defined "Saurischia" as birds and all dinos
>>>closer to birds than to Ornithischia, and "Theropoda" as birds and all
>>>closer to birds than to Sauropodomorpha. Padian & May defined
>>>"Ornithischia" as Triceratops and all dinos closer to Trike than to birds.
>>I love these ad hoc definitions. Suppose there were no dinos closer to
>>than to Ornithischia, which would be the case if brontosaurs were basal to
>>Ornithschia instead of Theropoda, a possibility certainly not excluded by
>>known cladistic analysis. And defining Theropoda as birds and all dinos
>Actually, it is is excluded in Gauthier 1986.
>>closer to birds than to Sauropodomorpha could well place lagosuchians and
>>herrerasaurians within Theropoda (doesn't bother me, by the way), since
>>there's no way any known lagosuchian or herrerasaurian was ancestral to any
>>brontosaur unless they magically regained pedal digit V. Likewise, the
>Much in the way that the hoatzin "magically regained" functional unguals?
>>definition of Ornithischia as all dinos closer to _Triceratops_ than to
>>does not exclude brontosaurs from Ornithischia.
>Yep. If Sauropodamorpha or some component thereof does turn out to be
>closer to Trike than to birds, than those critters would be Ornithischians.
>If this were the case, "Predentata" might be a good name for the