[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
for comparison.

=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!