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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:45 AM

> As for Plesion Alvarezsaurus, it too seems to be
> in this same early maniraptoriform part of the tree (and
> probably therizinosaurs as well, although many people
> seem to have difficulty accepting that possibility).

Because you offer no evidence. :-) How can anyone accept a hypothesis
without _knowing_ it?

>      In any case, if you want to group Alvarezsaurus and mononykiforms
> together, it would be better to call them alvarezsaurians.  Putting them
> into one alvarezsaurid family was a mistake, and that is a bad habit that
> should probably be broken as soon as possible.

Yaaay!!! An argument about which rank should be given to a particular group!
Wouldn't have thought I can ever see such a thing again... >:-D

> And it will help cushion the
> shock if Mickey's analysis demonstrates the non-holophyly of
> "Alvarezsauria".

What could cushion your shock if it demonstrates its holophyly? :-)

>       I just read Brian's (philidor's) post, and I think people should
> simply stop using the taxon name Arctometatarsalia,
> along with a few other names (like Carnosauria).

I hope Arctometatarsalia was defined later than Ornithomimosauria. Anyway, I
think care will be taken to produce this situation -- that, if
Arctometatarsalia is a synonym of Ornithomimosauria, it is a _junior_
synonym -- will be replicated under PhyloCode (remember: PhyloCode won't be
retroactive and will reset all priority of definition to zero). That chance
is probably smaller for Carnosauria, but at least it's defined so that
*Allosaurus*, _the_ carnosaur, always is a carnosaur; though I do think
Allosauroidea or even Allosauria look better.