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

Re: List of Dumb Names begun



-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:56 PM
Subject: List of Dumb Names begun


>Dear All,
>     I've decided to start an Unofficial List of Dumb Confusing Taxonomic
>Names (Above Family Level).
>     Anyone wishing to nominate names for this list, let me know (probably
>best offlist unless they are dinosaur taxa).
>                           -----Ken



An obvious candidate would seem to be Prolacertiformes. First because many
don`t see the group as being ancestral to modern lizards, and recently
because the groups namesake ...Prolacerta, is under investigation as
possibly itself not belonging to this group. Although looking at the foot
structure with the offset metapodial fifth toe, it certainly looks like it
belongs.

Can anybody give me the full  (Dilkes, 1998) reference to this topic, (or a
quick summary of why he dosen`t think that  Prolacerta or Protorosaurus
belong to the group termed Prolacertiformes)?

I guess, (if Dilkes is correct), the alternate term "Protorosaurs" is also
not appropriate.....then what should we call these critters???