[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
camarasaurids; and more clarifications
Regarding camarasaurids, my more traditional classification of
dinosaurs has Family Camarasauridae as sister group to (Brachiosauridae +
Titanosauridae). But be aware that my Titanosauridae (sensu lato) is
equivalent to "Titanosauria" which has been cladistically chopped up into 3
(or more?) separate families (which I would probably recognize as
subfamilies if I formally recognized subfamilies). When genera are overly
chopped up, it can quickly inflate cladistic hierarchies at higher levels
(and so maybe placing Maiasaura in Brachylophosaurus, and other "lumpings"
should be seriously considered).
I should mention that the Kinman System does not *forbid* the use of
formal intermediate ranks, but tries to strongly discourage it (unlike
strict cladists who do *forbid* the recognition of *ANY* formal paraphyletic
taxa). In any case, I think it is silly to give placozoans their own
subkingdom----- but given their apparent uniqueness and deep placement in
the Metazoan tree, a separate Phylum Placozoa seems justified (more so than
Mesozoa, which are apparently secondarily-simplified bilaterians, and
besides mesozoans may be polyphyletic if two or more such groups arose
B Petalonamata (extinct phylum)
..... and so on.
And rather than name a new formal clade "Epitheliozoa", why not just
call them non-Poriferan metazoans (or epitheliozoans). And with reference
to the above coded classification in particular, you can refer to it as
clade Metazoa 2+ (epitheliozoans). I'm not against giving names to such
clades, but let's keep it informal, and save the formal names for the
most-strongly supported clades. Too tired to clarify any further tonight.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp