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

Re: Revised Ornithischian Classification



>      If I thought hypsilophodonts could be divided into two clades (as you
> did), I would see no real need for a paraphyletic family.  But the closer
I
> look, I see more and more small clades splitting off sequentially (far
more
> than 2).

While I have no opinion on this, could you tell us some evidence for this,
or are you planning to write a paper on it?

> Therefore, I believe it is strict cladification that is the bad
> idea in this case, because it would require perhaps 10 small families or
> more (there could be one or two Australian clades splitting off separately
> that would require more families).

...that's why I dislike ranks :-)

> Since most dinosaurologists continue to
> assign these forms to a Family Hypsilophodontidae,

Most dinosaurologists don't use families anymore, and Hypsilophodontidae in
such a broad sense at least has gone completely out of use in the last few
years.

BTW, it's *Leaellynasaura*, with eae, after Lea Ellyn Rich AFAIK.