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

Re: FAQ: Dinosaur Classification Overview




David,
I do not like defining taxa by anchoring (Aves is a rare exception, but only because it promotes stability and continuity by using Archaeopteryx as an anchor) But since PhyloCode is coming (like it or not), I would personally like to see Dinosauria anchored on Eoraptor (as well as an ornithischian and a saurischian).
We had an extensive discussion about PhyloCode with Phil Cantino on TAXACOM back in October. Made some progress, but I fear the results were somewhat like putting a band-aid on a gapping wound needing 30 stitches (but even a little progress is better than none). However, I am looking forward to reading Cantino's response (which will hopefully be out by spring) to Mike Benton criticism of PhyloCode. Not very optimistic about it or PhyloCode, but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised (knocking on wood, crossing my fingers, and hoping for the best).
--------Ken
********************************************************
David Marjanovic wrote:
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...
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com