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

Re: Cladistic questions (long)

Felix Landry wrote:
>Is this dinosaur classification correct?
        A) I'll try to briefly tackle the theropod bit here...
        B) Where'd you get this?
        C) We can never know if a phylogeny is correct or not. If you do not
base your taxonomy on phylogeny, it can *never* be objectively "correct".
        D) This is obviously an attempt to incorporate *All* taxa into a
classification. As such, many of the taxa are provisionally referred, and
the place they are put may not represent actual analysis so much as an "eyeball
        E) Sound like your work, Stan...

(NOTE: my comments are preceeded by a *)

          Eoraptor lunensis
        *The placement of these groups in Theropoda is debated (Padian & May
                    Aliwalia rex
                    Alwalkeria maleriensis
        *I have never heard of Alwalkeria being placed here, and Aliwalia's
placement has been debated (by Novas?)

                ?Protoavis texensis
        *As far as I know, there is no evidence for this placement

                              Procompsognathus triassicus
                              Segisaurus halli
        *Hutchinson may eventually have something to say about this...

        *Paul has objected to the use of this taxon over Coelophysidae...

        *Has such a taxon been named?

                                        Indosuchus raptorius
        *Given Chatterjee's recent reconstruction, this seems less likely...

        *Interesting that this should end up here...

                         ?Afrovenator abakensis
        *Mmmm... I dunno...

                                             Acrocanthosaurus altispinax
        *This is a repeat of "Becklespinax" above...

                                             Bahariosaurus ingens

                                        ?Timimus hermani
        *Who is this??

        *As the name in quotes suggests, this is not necessarily a
monopyletic group. Odd that the person who put this together, and obviously
spent some effort avoiding this in other places, chose to do this here.


                                             ?Microvenator celer
        *Likely an oviraptorsaur or "segnosaur"
        *I would say it's a better bet that these two are more closely
related to each other than either is to any other of the taxa here (except
        *One of the many "Chilantaisuarus" taxa may belong here...

        *Uh uh... I am not aware of the current definition of Avialae, but
I'd be rather surprised if you could include Dromaeosauridae...

      Jonathan R. Wagner, Dept. of Geosciences, TTU, Lubbock TX 79409
            Web Page:  http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~jrw6f