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

Re: Taxonomy (was Re: Fixing dinosaurian carnivour question)

In a message dated 6/1/99 10:17:49 PM EST, sarima@ix.netcom.com writes:

<< If you leave Saurischia and Ornithischia as order, then superorder would 
 [Personally, I would tend to elevate Suarischia and Ornithischia to
 superorders, making Dinosauia a subclass or infraclass]. >>

As >orders< I would make the basic groups of dinosaurian discourse, namely, 
Theropoda, Sauropoda, Ankylosauria, Ceratopia, Ornithopoda, Stegosauria, and 
such. These would be grouped into superorders and so forth at one's 
discretion. The order is one of the basic ranks of the Linnaean hierarchy and 
should be reserved for the basic dinosaurian body types. When 
dinosaurologists gather to discuss their discoveries, they seldom say stuff 
like, "I found a new marginocephalian," "Next year we're taking the 
ornithischian out," or "Couldn't believe the terrific ankylopollexian that 
turned up," even though those terms are well defined in the dinosaur 
literature. First thing one will say is something like, "Got a new (small, 
large) theropod this summer," after which we ask for details, knowing 
already, just from the word "theropod," that the dinosaur has short 
forelimbs, long hind limbs, long tail, etc. It's a philosophical problem, not 
a scientific one.