[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Therizinosauria Cladogram
Jaime Headden wrote-
> > It was never cladistically defined by her.
It was never even used by her, she writies "therizinosaurs" in parentheses
over the title "segnosaurs". Indeed, throughout the article, she uses
"segnosaurians", implying a Segnosauria. She only uses "therizinosauroids"
in the historical section for Russell and Dong (1994) and successive
studies. Which leaves Russell (1997) or Barsbold (1997) to be the author of
T. Mike Keesey wrote-
> No but it was defined in the _Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_ (ed. Currie &
> Padian, 1997) in the chapter "Therizinosauria" by Dale A. Russell. An
> excerpt from pages 729-730:
> "Therizinosaurs include six described genera (_Alxasaurus_,
> _Enigmosaurus_, _Erlikosaurus_, _Nashiungosaurus_ [sic], _Segnosaurus_,
> and _Therizinosaurus_) of bipedal theropods ... Therezinosaurs [sic] may
> be described as the aforementioned taxa and all others closer to them than
> to oviraptorosaurs, ornithomimids, and troodontids."
Ick. Why oh why must he define it as a stem-based taxon? I think he lists
ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs and troodontids because those and
therizinosauroids made up his and Dong's "Oviraptorosauria" in their 1994
publication. Of course, this whole thing started with him and Dong when
they created Therizinosauroidea. Their whole discussion of the reasoning
behind Therizinosauroidea is this (pg.2121)-
"Therizinosauridae Maleev 1954 is available for a superfamily containing
Alxasaurus and the Therizinosauridae; the group is referred to below as
What was Barsbold's exact usage of Therizinosauria in 1997?