[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
AUGUSTINIA & TITANOSAURIA
Mickey Mortimer wrote...
> if Agustinia is a titanosaur, the evidence argues for
> its placement within the Titanosauridae, and we can hardly have a
> family within a family.
Yes, but many workers use the higher-level Titanosauria nowadays.
Presently the only named 'family' within this clade is Saltasauridae but
there's no reason why there couldn't be others - the argument that taxa
are redundant if they contain the same taxa as other, more inclusive
clades (which has resulted in the idea that genera are redundant if they
are monospecific: e.g. Lee and Caldwell on _Pachyophis_) is not
universal (e.g. Livezey's papers on anseriform phylogeny: these involve
computer-assisted parsimony analysis but the phylogeny generated
follows a convention to produce a Linnean taxonomy. There are
guidelines for this convention, cited in Livezey's papers).
"Screw you guys - I'm goin' home" - - Cartman, 2000
PALAEOBIOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP
School of Earth, Environmental & Physical Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
Burnaby Road email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Portsmouth UK tel: 01703 446718