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

Re: Ankylosauromorpha page

Fw this to vrtpaleo if you like.

> Excellent! One question, though -- doesn't _Ankylosauria_ have precendence
> for Clade(_Ankylosaurus_ <- _Stegosaurus_). I.e., is the name
> _Ankylosauromorpha_ really necessary?

Carpenter (ref below) seems to operate on a content-based concept and to
sacrifice all priority for usefulness: "To accomodate *Scelidosaurus*, a new
taxon, Ankylosauromorpha, is proposed. This node is defined in the caption
of Figure 21.6, along with those [the names?] of other nodes" (p. 467). Said
caption (p. 471) says:
"The nodes are defined as follows. [All are stems.]
(1) Ankylosauromorpha are thyreophorans that are closer to *Scelidosaurus*,
*Minmi*, Polacanthidae, Nodosauridae, and Ankylosauridae, than to
*Stegosaurus*. [...]
(2) Ankylosauria are ankylosauromorphs that are closer to *Minmi*,
*Gastonia*, *Edmontonia*, and *Euoplocephalus* than to *Scelidosaurus*. [No
typo, *Ankylosaurus* and *Stegosaurus* are not mentioned.] [...]
(3) Polacanthidae are ankylosaurs that are closer to *Gastonia* than to
*Edmontonia and *Euoplocephalus*. [...]
(4) Nodosauridae are ankylosaurs that are more closely related to
*Edmontonia* than to *Gastonia* or *Euoplocephalus*. [...]
(5) Ankylosauridae are ankylosaurs that are more closely related to
*Euoplocephalus* than to *Gastonia* or *Edmontonia*."
No citations whatsoever for the names or earlier definitions. We'll have to
wait for PhyloCode for nomenclatural stability in this area. (There has been
no traffic whatsoever on the PhyloCode mailing list for months... strange.)

Kenneth Carpenter: Phylogenetic Analysis of the Ankylosauria, 455 -- 483 in
Kenneth Carpenter (ed.): The Armored Dinosaurs, Indiana University 2001