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

Re: "carnosaur" classification (ABC)



Ken Kinman wrote-

>      Yes, that does help.  I think I'll go with Megalosauridae, and hope
it
> gets phylocode priority rather than Torvosauridae.
>      As for it having a "wastebasket image", I think "Carnosauria" beats
it
> by a country mile.  The short story is that Carnosauria was a polyphyletic
> wastebasket, until they took tyrannosaurs out.  That basically left a
> paraphyletic Carnosauria (as you noted), so then all the spinosaurs and
> megalosaurs were thrown out as well, leaving Carnosauria (sensu stricto)
> which is basically the same thing as Allosauria/Allosauroidea (sensu
lato).

I have a couple things to add here.
First, keep in mind Megalosaurus and Torvosaurus are not placed in the same
group by Holtz (1994, 2000), who is the only person I know of who has
examined both in a cladistic analysis (actually, Harris [1998] also did, but
didn't present his results].  I personally think they look really similar,
but my Tetanurae analysis isn't yet complete (Details on Fukuiraptor will be
forthcoming once it is :-) ).  Thus, they would be in different families,
although there is the chance one or both would be redundant.
Second, Carnosauria stands a good chance of not being synonymous with
Allosauria/Allosauroidea when taxa such as Monolophosaurus and Fukuiraptor
are considered.  Because of this, both terms are still useful.

Mickey Mortimer