[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)
In a message dated 9/12/01 7:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> The name Enigmosauria, although not bad etymologically (if I do say so
> myself), is actually probably not a good idea, since it would have to be
> anchored on _Enigmosaurus_, which is not the best-known therizinosaur.
I don't think that matters too much, since the chance is vanishingly small
that _Enigmosaurus_ is not closely related to _Segnosaurus_.
> think it would be a better idea to use a name like "Enigmoraptora"
(with apologies to Mike)
Please don't base any more names off "Maniraptora". It is not a well-formed
name, and it bugs the heck outta me. Aside from which, the members of this
clade were not very conventional predators. And besides, it's not very
> Furthermore, it is not based on any genus. (And neither is
> Pete Buchholz's suggestion, "Aenigmosauria".)
That'd be all right.
> A stem-based definition,
> say, Clade(_Oviraptor_ <-- _Passer_, _Ornithomimus_, _Troodon_), could
> work, or possibly a node-based definition like Clade(_Oviraptor_ +
> _Alxasaurus_), with the proviso that _Passer_ is excluded. (The former is
> probably more useful, though.)
I don't know. I like provisos.