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

Re: Benton et al.'s Supertree

--- Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk> wrote:
> > From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <tholtz@geol.umd.edu>
> > 
> > > 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 <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>

Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience