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

Re: Coelurus a maniraptoran (for how long?)



> (and who knows what troodonts might do next),
> [...]
>   The ornithomimids are going to get dizzy with all these groups
> leap-frogging back and forth overhead in both directions.

I'd love it if troodontids are nice next time and save Bullatosauria from
synomymy with Maniraptoriformes... :-) The dentitions of *Pelicanimimus* and
troodontids look quite similar, from what I've read, and AFAIK the paper
that described *Pelicanimimus* said ornithomimosaurs were just exaggerating
the "trend", "frozen" in the beginning stage by troodontids, to a more
cutting bite: ever more teeth, and the spaces between them filled up with
another lot of teeth.

>      I was rather taken aback when you said this morning that it "doesn't
> matter what other taxa belong in there."

Didn't you expect that from a cladist?

> It does matter to a lot of us.
> Is sacrificing stability of content in the name of "stability of
definition"
> really the best path to a more stable nomenclature?

The names are applicable to every phylogeny under phylogenetic nomenclature.
A cladist always knows how to refer to the nodes s/he finds, provided that
there are already names, without any quarrels.

> Why has
> Neocoelurosauria fallen out of usage when it seems to have a far more
stable
> content than Maniraptora or Maniraptoriformes?  Has Neocoelurosauria been
> cladistically defined?

What? Neocoelurosauria? What have I missed here?