[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ji and Ji's Classification
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Mickey_Mortimer11 wrote:
> So, Metatheropoda is Sinosauropteryx + Compsognathus + Neornithes?
Well, maybe. Like I said, these are just shown in the diagram and not
mentioned in the text. They may have had an apomorphy-based definition or
even no strict definition in mind, for all I know.
> Would be very close to Coelurosauria and probably synonymous with
> Avifilopluma sensu stricto.
_Avifilopluma_ is almost certainly a more inclusive clade. How much more?
We have no idea.
> And why the meta- prefix?
Got me. They're "above" normal theropods?
> I suppose there's not a Protarchaeopterygidae yet, so Chuniaoia actually has
> a use. :-(
Not if it's a synonym of _Protarchaeopteryx_ ;)
> Orthornithes is the stem of Confuciusornithidae (Confuciusornis +
> Changchengornis). Confuciusornithiformes would be a better stem, but hasn't
> been defined.
Neither has Orthornithes, as far as I can tell.
> May be useful?! Do these people know how uncommon epidermal structures are
> in the fossil record?
> Would "natal down" be like the tufts in Sinornithosaurus? If so, Aviplumosa
> sensu stricto would be the enigmosaur-paravian clade,
Well, slightly more inclusive, in all probability.
> Avipinna sensu stricto is... um.... also that clade. Based on
> Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx again.
> Aviremigia sensu stricto on the other hand is.... also, that clade. Based
> on the same taxa.
> So, Dromavialae = Aviplumosa = Avipinna = Aviremigia. Take your pick.
They would be different in terms of membership if we had more data. But,
yeah, I don't see any real use for these, myself.
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
personal <email@example.com> --> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>