[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Favored Taxa in Definitions
Sereno's revision of definitions is not new. His and Rao's taxon, *Sinornis*
synonymy pending with the senior *Cathayornis*, oddly meaning the same thing)
being the anchor for
an Enantiornithes that may, then, potentially not include it. Bad construction,
in my opinion,
aside from the simply logical use of a eponymous taxa in their definitions.
Titanosauridae vs. Saltasauridae? Sereno does not regard *Titanosaurus
indicus* Lydekker as a
valid taxon. I am presently working on diagnostic caudal morphology in
titanosaurs, but it looks
like *T. indicus* is, in fact, a valid form. And that half the species in
be. Most species share an affinity with *Saltasaurus* and *Neuquensaurus*
(which may as well be
re-synonymized); the recent saltasaurine *Rocasaurus* may also be a simple
However, the general validity of one taxon over the other is based on the
relative comparison ...
most titanosaurs are based on caudal material primarily, and are diagnosed by
this. It is useful
potentially to diagnose titanosaurs generally by caudal morphology.
Troodontidae a bad name? Contra Currie, *Troodon* appears to work only for
the type tooth, which
resembles other teeth in the premaxillae and anterior dentary, but is not a
morphology so far
recovered. I would argue that the taxon is a nomen dubium. Saurornithoididae is
relatively valid replacement name available.
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com