[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: classification systems
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, PALEO MONT wrote:
> Dear Sir-
> I am reading about classification of the Dinosauria, and I see many
> different levels and systems. What I would like to know is what system is
> it that you use most often? I've seen Linnaen Taxonomic Rank, Phylogenetic
> Systematics, Evolutionary Systematics (gradistics), and so on. What is
> considered the best? Or are they all used, just in different studies?
> Also, Families and Orders are broken down into smaller groups, like
> Parvorder, Nanorder, Gigafamily, Grandfamily, Superfamily, Subfamily,
> Tribe, et cetera. To what extent are Dinosaur groups labeled? I was just
> wondering how common all of the subdivisions are utilized.
Cladistic (or phylogenetic) taxonomy is becoming the most popular system.
It uses no absolute ranks above genus -- every taxon is simpy a clade --
one ancestor and all of its descendants. Relative to another clade it
might be a subclade (if it is contained by the other clade), a superclade
(if it contains the other clade), or nothing (if neither clade contains
the other). The scheme mirrors the (hypothesized) phylogenetic history
For a fairly up-to-date cladogram of Dinosauria, see my web pages:
Clickable image diagram with timeline:
Detailed version (root):
--T. Mike Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
DINOSAUR WEB PAGES -- http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur/index.htm