[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 *)
*The placement of these groups in Theropoda is debated (Padian & May
*I have never heard of Alwalkeria being placed here, and Aliwalia's
placement has been debated (by Novas?)
*As far as I know, there is no evidence for this placement
*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?
*Given Chatterjee's recent reconstruction, this seems less likely...
*Interesting that this should end up here...
*Mmmm... I dunno...
*This is a repeat of "Becklespinax" above...
*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.
*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