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


In a message dated 98-02-06 12:19:12 EST, martz@holly.ColoState.EDU writes:

<<  In the last few years, information on specimens of dinosaur mailing
 list subscribers has become sufficiently abundant to do a preliminary
 phylogenetic analysis.  In the interests of avoiding controversy, 
 particular binomial taxa will not be specified. >>

I found your phylogeny most interesting, though (of course) I would dispute
some of the groupings. For example, in my own analyses, I've found that the
families Gottaclueidae and Wannabeidae are not sister groups but share an
ancestor-descendant relationship: Wannabeidae are actually derived members of
the clade Gottaclueidae; all wannabeids are gottaclueids, but not all
gottaclueids are wannabeids. Also, Amateuria and Professionalosauria aren't
sister groups, either. It is well known that professionalosaurs were all once
amateurians, and indeed, wannabeid amateurians (though a few were highly
aberrant), in the distant past. So most of the features shared by amateurians
and professionalosaurians are probably not convergent but plesiomorphic.

The dino-list phylogeny would thus resemble a Hennigian comb starting with
Dinolistiformes and terminating with Paleontologistidae. The actual groupings
are left as an exercise (since I don't want to mess with typing up those pesky

As an addendum, let me note that the group one might call Creationistia seems
to be a polyphyletic grade rather than a clade. There are creationistian-like
creatures among all the following terminal clades: Getmeoffthislist!ea (where
they are perhaps most numerous), Gottaclueidae, Wannabeidae,
Notpaleontologistidae, and even one or two among Paleontologistidae.