[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Mongolian dinosaur inspires religion in grad student
At 04:42 PM 10/2/96 -0500, Tom Holtz wrote (quoting me) wrote:
>Actually, by rules of Linnean taxonomy, the superfamily would be
>"Ornithomimoidea" (Ornithomim- + -oidea).
I hate this darned keyboard. I do find it impressive that I
apparently misspelled this twice. I plead weary fingers. I have spent the
entire day cutting out crystal forms, thirty of which I found out yesterday
are due tomorrow...
>>course, in the phylogeny I presented, this taxon recieves his name
>Bullatosauria is the node-based taxon joining Troodon (or Stenonychosaurus,
>as soon as a second distinct troodontid with the same tooth form is found in
>the Judith River... :-() and Ornithomimus.
And in the phylogeny I presented, Tyrannosauroidea was closer to
Ornithomimus than to Troodon, and therefore, the clade (Tyrannosauroidea,
Ornithomimoidea, Troodontidae) was covered by "Bullatosauria".
Uh, were you joking about the stenonychosaur? I don't read smiley
>> I am still unclear on how to handle the apparent "synonomy" of a
>>stem-based clade and a node-based clade...
>These will not be synonyms unless they use the same name.
Sorry, I cannot remember the terms... I was thinking of... is it
_subjective synonyms_ that include the same taxa? Anyway, thanks for the
>> Note that, in the above, I assume Ornithomimoidea to be "all animals
>>more closely related to Ornithomimus than to Troodon or Tyrannosaurus."
>>Presently, this gives Ornithomimisauria: "all animals more closely related
>>to Ornithomimus than they are to Troodon",
>I like this one, which I use informally (until I formally define it
It equally could apply to Ornithomimisauria, or you could specify
the superfamily as a node between, I don't know, say Garudamimus and
Ornithomimus or something. I hope this doesn't happen. I would be
interested to hear someone's justification for a taxon higher than a
superfamily for this clade.
>>or "the most recent common ancestor of Tyrannosaurus and
>>Ornithomimus and all of it's decendants."
>This I don't like.
I was just misusing taxonomy. If I can find whomever it was who
coined it (Barsbold? Osmolska?), I think I'll apologize. I can't help it,
I think it might help to name this clade. I guess exapting (getting my
dime's worth) a previously used term is bad form (Holtz 1996). Back to the
>> But of course! The D-shaped premax teeth of Pelicanomimus are
>>probably what keeps making the ornithomims come out as sister to the
>Have you coded the maxillary and dentary tooth form yet?
To the best of my ability, I believe so. Falls under:
Extreme tooth density
Teeth with a basal constriction
I don't see what you're getting at quite yet. I think that the
program is interpreting most of the tooth characters as Bullatosaur (sensu
Wagner, sorry again :) plesiomorphies. It is possible that part of the
problem is that Holtz 1994 is still not fully integrated into the dataset
(and Russel et Dong 1993 is waiting...), because I left my great big
character map at home in Virginia.
Like I said, work in progress... :)
>As has been said before: Homoplasy! Thy name is "Theropod"!
It is possible that a modern "evolutionary taxonomy" of the
Coelurosauria migt more properly represent my current read on their phylogeny:
We're all one big happy trichotomy!
+-------------******ONCE AGAIN, NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADRESS******---------------+
| Jonathan R. Wagner "You can clade if you want to, |
| Department of Geosciences You can leave your friends behind |
| Texas Tech University Because your friends don't clade |
| Lubbock, TX 79409 and if they don't clade, |
| *** firstname.lastname@example.org *** Then they're no friends of mine." |
| Web Page: http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jrw6f |