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

Carnosaurs, taxonomy, the usual...[Part 1]

Tom Holtz writes, quoting me...

>>        Which then brings up, what do we call the noe of Ornithomimus +
>>Tyrannosaurus.  Tom Holtz?
>No, "Tom Holtz" is not a suitable name for that node, since my dad has
>priority over it... :-)

        Ok, TIM Holtz!

>I'd just as soon leave that node unnamed, and use the stem-based
>"Arctometatarsalia" for it.

        I just think that that node is a very important one, and
distinguishing this clade from it's outgroups is important enough to merit
a name.  Also, were (and, now, this is pretty speculative)
Ornithomimisauria to be more closely related to tyrannosaurs than to
troodonts (wince), the whole clade becomes the Bullatosauria, and wouldn't
you want a name for the Ornithomimisauria+Tyranosauria (I like it, I'm
keeping it!).

>Carnosauria, definition of Holtz and Padian, 1995:  Allosaurus and all
>theropods closer to Allosaurus than to birds.

        YAY!  A ref.!

>(Note that if Ceratosaurus turns out to be closer to Allosaurus than to
>birds, then Carnosauria becomes a junior subjective synonym of Ceratosauria).

        Ok, what's this???  Now, I admit that Cerato looks a lot like
Allosaurus, but we've all been over this a hundred times.  It's getting so
it's hard to justify a need for the Carnosauria, since things keep looking
like basal tetanurans (Holtz 1994, Sereno 1994, Sereno 1996).  So where is
this coming from, I ask as I prepare to duck my head in the sand so I don't
have to hear the answer...