[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: "T. Mike Keesey" <email@example.com>
> > Doesn't seem too much to worry about here, and I think some people
> > are getting tired of saying "the oviraptorosaur-therizinosaur
> > clade".
> Since that's the concept that the new name is trying to capture,
> surely the definition _must_ be the node rather than the stem?
If therizinosaurs were not included, it would probably become a
heterodefinitional synonym of _Oviraptorosauria_, if _Oviraptorosauria_ is
defined as Clade(_Oviraptor_ <-- _Alxasaurus_, _Passer_, _Troodon_,
_Ornithomimus_) or something like that.
The stem is, IMHO, a more useful clade to name because there are certain
taxa (e.g., _Microvenator_, _Thecocoelurus_) which fairly securely belong
to the stem-based clade, but it is ambiguous as to whether they belong to
the node-based clade.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <firstname.lastname@example.org> --> <email@example.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>