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

Re: Dino placements...



Jaime A. Headden wrote-

>   Because the group has not been named, and is pretty much an internet
name for the time being.
> Such names should be used in quotes or implied only. There is no taxonomic
validity (read:
> conventions of naming rules) to "Enigmosauria" as yet. When you can find
the name in print, I will
> use it.

Okay- Naish, Darren; Stephen Hutt; David M. Martill. "[Chapter] 9.
Saurichian Dinosaurs 2: Theropods." in Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight,
edited by David M. Martill and Darren Naish. Text Figure 9.1. Page 243.
It's a published name, free to use.

>   Besides, what's the support fo your topology, anyway?

My phylogenetic analysis with only 42 of its 347 characters verified for as
much accuracy as the published literature allows.  Also, most of its
components are the current consensus- Enigmosauria, Caudipteryx and
Microvenator basal to caenagnathoids in the Oviraptorosauria, Caenagnathidae
and Oviraptoridae as caenagnathoids, troodontids as paravians.  Every
analysis with both Caudipteryx and Microvenator (all unpublished) have
placed the first more basally than the latter.  I haven't seen an analysis
including Nomingia outside of my own (maybe Holtz's SVP cladogram had it,
but I didn't get a chance to check), but my details segment presents pretty
good evidence for it being sister to Caudipteryx.  Protarchaeopteryx is
fairly controversial within the Maniraptora- it is an enigmosaur in my trees
and those of some others, but some people have it as a paravian.  Finally,
the position of troodontids outside of eumaniraptorans has been standard
until recently, as it seems a position inside Deinonychosauria is gaining
support.

Mickey Mortimer