[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/11/00 9:37:08 PM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << Why, if a) the current usage of Coelurosauria is widely understood, and b)
> Coelurosauria was phylogenetically defined earlier (Coeluria has never
> been phylogenetically defined), and c) Coeluria originally only included
> _Coelurus_, even though another (non-avian) coelurosaur (_Compsognathus_)
> was well-known at the time. >>
> For one thing, the name Coelurosauria is not based on a generic name, but
> Coeluria is.
I don't understand why this is important.
> For another, it's shorter and more compact, easier to pronounce
> and to write.
True, but hardly a valid reason to oust a well-established taxon name.
> It remains a mystery to me why Huene would bother to create a
> name such as Coelurosauria when the name Coeluria for the same group was
> already available.
Two reasons I can think of:
- To complement the simultaneously-created Carnosauria. (Not a tremendous
reason, but ...)
- Because it wasn't the same group. If Marsh's Coeluria included only
_Coelurus_, then he excluded _Compsognathus_, which had been described 20
years before _Coelurus_. Yet _Compsognathus_ is part of Coelurosauria.
T. Michael Keesey.........<email@example.com>.........<firstname.lastname@example.org>
AIM <Ric Blayze>..............ICQ <77314901>...........Yahoo!M <Mighty Odinn>
Home Page (includes The Dinosauricon)........<http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>