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


I just got a look at the non-coelurosaur theropod definitions from
Sereno's taxonomy paper. Didn't get to see the whole paper, so maybe some
of this is explained elsewhere, but I have questions, anyway:

Neotheropoda: Shouldn't this have _Ceratosaurus_, not _Coelophysis_, as an
anchor? Didn't the original usage (by Bakker) exclude _Coelophysis_?

Ceratosauria: Why on Earth did he anchor this with _Coelophysis_????
Wasn't it already defined as {_Ceratosaurus_ > Neornithes} (which makes a
hell of a lot more sense, especially if _Ceratosaurus_ turns out to be
closer to tetanurines than to _Coelophysis_).

Ceratosauroidea: This looks like a junior synonym of Neoceratosauria.

Tetanurae: That must be a typo. I assume it's supposed to say 
{_Torvosaurus_ + Neornithes}, not {Neornithes > _Torvosaurus_}, since he
includes Torvosauroidea within. I had thought Tetanurae was stem-based,

Neotetanurae: Does this have precedence or does Avetheropoda?

Allosauroidea: The way he's defined it, isn't it a junior synonym of
Carnosauria? I thought Allosauroidea was a node-based clade within

Hmmm... applying his definition of Spinosauridae to the cladogram on my
site, birds are spinosaurids....

--T. Mike Keesey                                   <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>
THE DINOSAURICON                http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1/dinosaur