[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: PT paper
At 01:08 PM 3/30/99 EST, Dinogeorge wrote:
><< Oh geez, whoops! Mistake here. D'oh again, low coffee morning... of
> course I meant the (Theropoda + Sauropodomorpha) node; first node within
> Saurischia, not the Dinosauria node (Ornithischia + Saurischia), which is
> well established. Sorry. I should stick to functional morphology. :-) >>
>Naming nodes like these tends to crystallize them in the scientific/public
>mind. I for one (and Michael Cooper and Robert Bakker at least would be on my
>side, and the late Alan Charig, too) absolutely disagree that the node
>Theropoda + Sauropodomorpha is distinct from Dinosauria.
Which is fine: if the clade uniting Neornithes and _Cetiosaurus_ is the same
clade as that uniting Neornithes and _Triceratops_, then Dinosauria has
priority and "Eusaurischia" is a junior synonym not to be used. If,
instead, _Cetiosaurus_ is found to be closer to Neornithes than to
_Triceratops_, then Eusaurischia is a useful term.
It might be a particularly useful term if, for example, _Eoraptor_ and/or
_Staurikosaurus_ and/or _Herrerasaurus_ were found to be saurischians but
outside a sauropodomorph-theropod clade.
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology Email:email@example.com
University of Maryland Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD 20742 Fax: 301-314-9661