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

RE: SVP Preview

DINOSAUROLOGICA, rest assured that: Megalosaurus
bucklandii and Megalosauridae are "rescued" as
converted clade names; that "Megalosaurinae" and any
other "nae" is rejected as phylogenetically redundant;
that, based on the complete hypodigm of Megalosaurus
bucklandii, I believe Poecilopleuron/Poekilopleuron to
be, as some Victorian scholars suspected, either
Megalosaurus bucklandii or a Megalosaurus spp., but
that what is needed is an associated skeleton (Eudes
Deslongchamps' specimen is lost, and the casts of what
remains are not especially informative); that
Torvosaurus is a species of Megalosaurus. It should be
an interesting panorama.

--- "Williams, Tim" <TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu> wrote:
> George Olshevsky wrote:
> > Another problem I had with the JVP Poekilopleuron
> paper was that the
> > family (ending -idae) Megalosauridae and subfamily
> (ending -inae)
> > Megalosaurinae were not anchored to their type
> genus. 
> Yep, I agree 100%.  This sort of thing - anchoring
> suprageneric clades in
> non-nominative genera - has to be dispensed with if
> PT is going to work.
> Titanosauridae and Ceratopsidae are good examples. 
> No one, to my knowledge,
> has ever demonstrated that _Titanosaurus_ is a
> member of the Titanosauridae,
> or that _Ceratops_ belongs in the Ceratopsidae. 
> Sereno erected
> Saltasauridae for derived titanosaurians, and
> anchored the clade in
> _Saltasaurus_ and _Opisthocoelicaudia_, which was a
> good idea IMHO.
> Tim

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