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

Re: "carnosaur" classification (ABC)



> David,
>      Yes, that does help.

Thanks!

> 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).
>      With that kind of wastebasket history and different meanings, I would
> much rather get rid of Carnosauria (as a taxon of any kind), whose
> wastebasket-istics are far worse than those of Megalosauridae.  Even if I
> did want to keep the old paraphyletic "Carnosauria" (which I don't), I
would
> call it something else. On top of everything else, the name "carnosaur"
> isn't even appropriate any more---actually come to think of it, it never
was
> appropriate!!!
>     ABC (Anything But Carnosauria)!!!!!   Toss it on the junk pile with
> Vermes and Insectivora.
>                     ----Ken

This is probably nitpicking, but all taxonomy is to some degree nitpicking,
so I'll write it:
As a reference for Good Old Times, I've had a look into David Lambert (and
the Diagram Group): A Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Diagram Visual Information
Ltd. 1983. There Carnosauria includes Teratosauridae, Therizinosauridae,
Ceratosauridae, Spinosauridae, Allosauridae, Megalosauridae, Dryptosauridae,
Tyrannosauridae, Itemiridae and Segnosauridae, so it definitely is a
wastebasket.
        Both Carnosauria and Coelurosauria have :.-( been cladistically
defined, unlike Megalosauridae...
But I don't think that Megalosauridae is better in this book: It includes
(on 5 pages) *Bahariasaurus*, *Carcharodontosaurus*, *Chingkankousaurus*,
*Dilophosaurus* (under a bulky illustration, not in the main text: "In spite
of its size *Dilophosaurus* could have been a coelurosaur."), *Embasaurus*,
*Erectopus*, *Eustreptospondylus*, *Kelmayisaurus*, *Macrodontophion* (a
?plesiosaur), *Majungasaurus*, *Megalosaurus*, *Orthogoniosaurus*,
*Poekilopleuron*, *Proceratosaurus* ("may have been the ceratosaurid
ancestor of *Ceratosaurus*"), *Sarcosaurus*, *Szechuanosaurus* and
*Torvosaurus*. So it, too, is definitely a wastebasket.
        In contrast, The Dinosauricon
(http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/tetanurae.html) includes *Edmarka*,
*Megalosaurus*, *Poekilopleuron* and *Torvosaurus* in Torvosauridae. (I've
elsewhere seen *Eustreptospondylus*, *Brontoraptor* (still a nomen nudum)
and *Afrovenator* included.) This is much more robust and useful, even if it
should turn out to be paraphyletic, as HP Mickey Mortimer has meanwhile
pointed out. Therefore, if Megalosauridae and Torvosauridae are the same,
I'll use the latter unless the former gets PhyloCode priority.