[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Stephen wrote:
> "T. Mike Keesey" wrote:
> > While I'm at it, can anyone think of any objections to these definitions?:
> > _Pseudosuchia_ == Clade(_Crocodylus_ <-- _Passer_, _Iguanodon_,
> > _Megalosaurus_)
> It seems a pity not to take the opportunity of a new code to abandon
> those names which have become slightly nonsensical, of which this must
> be the shining example: "false crocodiles" seems the wrong way to name a
> clade based on _Crocodylus_. Stability of nomenclature isn't all good,
> all the time.
The pre-existing _Crocodylotarsi_ would be a *much* more appropriate name.
(It also makes for a nicer match to its sister group, _Avemetatarsalia_
(if that name is used instead of _Ornithosuchia_).)
It's kind of hard to make some of these calls, though. For example,
_Predentata_ is a much more appropriate name for Clade(_Iguanodon_ <--
_Megalosaurus_) than _Ornithischia_. But _Ornithischia_ is *extremely*
widely used, and _Predentata_ hardly used at all. In this case, the less
appropriate name should be conserved.
Is _Pseudosuchia_ too commonly used to be supplanted by _Crocodylotarsi_?
My feeling is no, although others are much better qualified to judge.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>