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

Re: FAQ: Dinosaur Classification Overview



>      I personally would prefer to see Herrerasauria formally recognized in
> your classification (as sister group to the rest of the theropods, i.e.
> neotheropods).

In most people's classifications it is monotypic with respect to
Herrerasauridae and therefore out of use.

> You could [...] perhaps also mention that some workers believe
herrerasaurs
> are actually sister group to all other dinosaurs (not just to theropods).

In which case they aren't dinosaurs at all, because dinosaurs are defined
node-basedly. BTW, this opinion seems to have become quite rare in the last
few years. For example, it has turned out that 2 sacral vertebrae, not 3,
are plesiomorphic for dinosaurs.

P. S.: You might like to join the PhyloCode mailing list where people like
HP Jonathan R. Wagner, Kevin de Queiroz and Philip Cantino discuss how the
current draft of the PhyloCode could/should be improved... (low-traffic,
unlike this list, there sometimes aren't any posts for months, today I have
received less than 10. Won't flood your inbox.) :-)