[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ankylosauromorpha page
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Mickey_Mortimer11 wrote:
> *insane laughter* Why? Why must he have such horrible definitions?
Fortunately, some seem to have been published earlier.
In _Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs_ (ed. Currie & Padian, 1997), from
Carpenter's chapter on _Ankylosauria_, page 16:
"Ankylosauria may be defined as all thyreophoran ornithischians closer to
_Ankylosaurus_ than to _Stegosaurus_."
BUT, the chapter uses typological definitions for Nodosauridae and
Ankylosauridae (based on presence of tail club -- meaning a paraphyletic
Nodosauridae, including _Polacanthus_).
AND, Padian's chapter on "Phylogeny of Dinosaurs" says that Sereno, 1986
defined _Ankylosauria_, _Stegosauria_, _Ankylosauridae_ and _Nodosauridae_
as node-based clades. Is that right? I don't have the paper -- what are
the definitions? I agree with Mickey that stem-based definitions seem to
make mro sense.
> Isn't the _obvious_ phylogenetic taxonomy for Ankylosauria-
> Ankylosauria- everything closer to Ankylosaurus than Stegosaurus
> Nodosauridae- everything closer to Nodosaurus than Ankylosaurus and
> Polacanthidae- everything closer to Polacanthus than Nodosaurus and
> Ankylosauridae- everything closer to Ankylosaurus than Nodosaurus and
> What would have been so hard about that?
> * end rant *
I like this. Would also add _Ankylosauroidea_ as Clade(_Ankylosaurus_ +
_Nodosaurus_ + _Polacanthus_).
Seems to me I've also seen _Ankylosauridae_ used as Clade(_Ankylosaurus_
<-- _Nodosaurus_) with _Polacanthinae_ a group therein, but mayeb I
What are the Sereno 1986 definitions? Seems these are the oldest.
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>