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

Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_

That is precisely why I am hoping that a Family Microvenatoridae has been formally proposed, because it would preoccupy Caudipteridae, assuming Microvenator and Caudipteryx are in the same clade (a sister clade to the rest of the oviraptorosaurs). Still might end up with a Subfamily "Caudipterinae" (but at least it would downgrade the prominence of this etymological foul-up.
From what I have heard thus far, there seems to be a concensus that Caudipteryx, Microvenator, and Nomingia are fairly closely related and at the base of the oviraptorosaurs. I'm not sure if Nomingia would belong in this same clade or in a family of its own (cladistically intermediate between "Microvenatoridae" and the other two named families (Oviraptoridae and Caenagnathidae). Any chance Protarchaeopteryx might fit in with "Microvenatoridae" as well?
P.S. If anyone knows whether Microvenatoridae has been officially proposed anywhere in the literature, I would be interested in hearing about it. Thanks.

From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-To: Dinogeorge@aol.com
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Status of _Caudipteryx_
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:24:29 EST

In a message dated 12/28/00 8:02:41 PM EST, tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:

<< Caudipteridae is definitely wrong; if there's any choice, it would be
between Caudipterygidae (as in Archaeopterygidae) or Caudipterychidae (as
in Baryonychidae). I'm pretty certain the former would be the correct one. >>

Caudipterygidae is etymologically correct, but under current rules
Caudipteridae has to stick; see article 29.4 of the 4th edition of the ICZN.
As I recall, the family name was created in 2000 (that is, after 1999).
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com