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

Re: "carnosaur" classification



If you include Torvo-/Megalosauridae in Carnosauria, it is likely to become
very paraphyletic.

> P.S.  QUESTION:  By the way, which has priority, Torvosauridae or
> Megalosauridae?   Is it possible that one could have priority by the
> Zoological Code and the other priority by the PhyloCode???

Yes. If *Megalosaurus* belongs into Torvosauridae as currently understood,
and it surely looks like that, then under ICZN Megalosauridae has priority.
I have read somewhere (maybe I can dig the ref up, but...) that at least
some people prefer to use Torvosauridae because it is phylogenetically
defined (how actually? *Torvosaurus* > Neornithes?) and well-diagnosed
(how?). Under PhyloCode nothing has priority, because it is not yet
implemented. Either M. or T. will gain priority if it will be
phylogenetically defined _after_ PhyloCode will have been implemented.

Until then I'll prefer to use T. because M. has this wastebasket image.

Hope this helps!