[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Benton et al.'s Supertree
--- Mike Taylor <email@example.com> wrote:
> > From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Hi all, I checked the archives for *Oviraptosaurs* (without "ro")
> > > but although I found it on sevreal posts, I couldn't find who
> > > coined it first. Anyone knows?
> > No one ever "coined" it; it is just a typographical error!
> But in the supertree paper -- or, more precisely, in figure 2 (p4),
> it's used to indicate a group
> Which looks more like what Darren called Enigmosauria.
_Oviraptorosauria sensu lato_ (Currie & Padian 1997) is Clade(_Oviraptor_ <-
_Neornithes_). It has also been defined in a stricter sense by Padian,
Hutchinson & Holtz 1998 as Clade(_Caenagnathus_ [=_Chirostenotes_] +
The Benton super-tree appears to have gone with the former usage (or something
like it) and misspelled the name.
Personally, I feel a definition between those two extremes might be better:
something along the lines of Clade(_Oviraptor philoceratops_ <- _Vultur
gryphus_, _Therizinosaurus cheloniformis_) (maybe with more external
specifiers). Then the strict definition could be used for _Caenagnathoidea_ and
the broad definition for _Enigmosauria_ (or Aenigmosauria or whatever). Or
something like that.
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience