[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Whose definition of Dinosauria?
At 02:20 PM 11/16/97 +1100, Adam Yates wrote:
>> By Feduccia's hypothesis I assume that his "Maniraptoria" would contain no
>> dinosaurs at all, since all of the dinosaurs would by his view share a more
>> recent common ancestor with Ornithomimidae than with birds.
>> I must stop writing messages after midnight.....
>Well actually if Fedduccia is right (I am assuming that he advocates bird
>origins from within or near the crocodylomorpha) Maniraptora would contain
>(but not taxa we are used to calling dinosaurs) since Dinosauria by
>definition includes modern birds (it is a node
>based taxon connecting Triceratops with Modern Birds).
>These are just some of the fun and games you can have with
>phylogenetic taxonomy and large scale changes in phylogenetic hypotheses.
>It is also good reason to use Georges definition of Dinosauria
Er. umm, excuse me? George's definition? I think if you search the
archive, you might find a different name was first associated with such a
(Or, if you want a hard copy reference:
"Regrettably, it was only later that T.R. Holtz (personal communication)
suggested that the first two described dinosaurs, Megalosaurus and
Iguanodon, included in Owen's original Dinosauria, would have been more
fitting end members than birds and Triceratops!" - p. 178
Padian, K. 1997. Dinosauria: Definition. pp. 175-179. In Currie, P.J. and
K. Padian (eds.) Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. Academic Press.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661