[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: preliminary ornithischian classification
> WOW Alessandro, you convinced me!!!
And me :-)
> The only really "BIG" question in my mind now is whether or not
> Ankylosauridae and Stegosauridae (both sensu lato here) are really sister
> groups or not. Apparently some workers think Stegosaurs are sister group
> to cerapodans (in a clade excluding ankylosaurs).
> By the way, are there any major objections to placing Iguanodon as a
> primitive hadrosauridae? I didn't see any need to maintain that as a
> family of its own (but I have this dreadful feeling someone is going to
> me Iguanodontidae has priority).
I don't know when Iguanodontidae was named, all I can say is that
Hadrosauridae has IIRC got a stem-based definition that explicitely excludes
*Iguanodon*. If you ignore this (no problem apart from confusion, PhyloCode
has still not been implemented :-) ), then I don't see any further problem
Just what do you put into Fabrosauridae? *Fabrosaurus* (a nomen dubium,
BTW), *Lesothosaurus*... anything else?