[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> Ah, thanks for pointing that out. The reason I conflated Avetheropoda
> with the Tetanurae is because in Paul's own footnote in PDW, he mentions
> that he was trying to figure out a term for 'advanced theropods of this
> general mold', and he says that he decided to come up with his own name,
> Avetheropoda, because Gauthier had named Tetanurae and Bakker had named
> Dinoaves, and it wasn't clear which had priority.
I believe under Gauthier's original phylogeny megalosaurids, etc. were
considered carnosaurs, and hence tetanurans. Under that phylogeny, the
node-based group (_Avetheropoda/Neotetanurae_) and the stem-based group
(_Tetanurae_) would be identical in content, so Paul may have assumed Gauthier
meant _Tetanurae_ to be a node-based taxon, and then removed the forms he
considered to be more basal (now widely accepted).
I believe Sereno also used _Tetanurae_ as a node-based clade (anchored on
_Torvosaurus_? I forget).
> So I think he can be forgiven for not going to great
> lengths to keep 'Neotetanurae' separate from 'Tetanurae'
Yes, especially since _Neotetanurae_ would not be named for another 6 years.
I had forgotten about Dinoaves -- I need to have another look at _Heresies_. I
wonder if it could (should?) be resurrected for some clade....
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better