[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
>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...