[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: SVP Preview
--- Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/26/02 11:49:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com writes:
> << Untrue. He states (in his 2002 SVP abstract) that Metriacanthosaurus is
> "more closely related to Allosauroidea" than to Spinosauroidea (containing
> megalosaurids). Note he uses Allosauroidea in place of Carnosauria.
> Also note that if Spinosauroidea is to contain Megalosaurus, then its name
> must be Megalosauroidea, not Spinosauroidea. Megalosauridae at the family
> level has considerable priority over Spinosauridae. See, e.g., my letter to
> Science back in 1995 or 1996 (forget just which year it appeared), when it
> was Spinosauroidea having priority over Torvosauroidea.
This is if you are going by ICZN rules, and consider these taxa to be
superfamilies. I you consider them rankless clades, then _Spinosauroidea_ has a
phylogenetic definition, and Megalosauroidea, does not, making it unavailable
=====> T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!