[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: What Is Not a Dinosaur? (was re: Ankle Articulation in Pterosaurs)
In a message dated 97-01-24 17:20:12 EST, email@example.com (Jonathan R.
<< I believe that what Senor Dr. Novas was attempting to say (whether
he is aware of it or not) is "17 characters (synapomorphies) that support
monophyly of Dinosauria exclusive of other taxa in the study." or some other
Then why didn't he say this? Not to mention that many of the taxa
(_Lagerpeton_, _Marasuchus_, Pseudolagosuchus_) he believes to be outside
Dinosauria as he has defined it are almost certainly WITHIN in, having a more
recent common ancestor with theropods than with sauropods or ornithischians.
This may be the source of some of his obvious difficulties.
<< While dinosaurs are commonly considered to be monophyletic
of the other taxa used in his study >>
"Commonly considered"? Novas DEFINED Dinosauria to be monophyletic.
Dinosauria is monophyletic >by definition<, and common considerations have
nothing to do with it.