[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Coelurosaur analysis update
--- Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> Mickey Mortimer
> >- non-maniraptoriform enigmosaurs and deinonychosaurs.
> And thus, if I've understood you correctly, Maniraptoriformes would become a
> clade *within* Maniraptora.
That would be impossible using the stem-based definition of _Maniraptora_
(everything closer to modern birds than to _Ornithomimus_) and the node-based
definition of _Maniraptoriformes_ (modern birds + _Ornithomimus_).
Rather, in the phylogeny presented by Mickey, dromaeosaurids and "enigmosaurs"
would not be maniraptors(!) Oddly enough, though, they would be
eumaniraptors.... (_Deinonychus_ + modern birds)
> I'm not aware if Sauriurae (originally Saururae) or Archaeopterygiformes or
> Archaeornithes have actually received a phylogenetic definition. Any of
> these names is available should the "long-tailed birds" (or at least some of
> them, including _Archaeopteryx_) be found to form their own clade within
> Aves. I believe all these names (and "Ornithopappi") were proposed solely
> for the reception of _Archaeopteryx_ (including _Archaeornis_, and other
> assorted synonyms).
"Ornithopappi"? What's that?
Leave us not forget Archaeopterygoidea, Archaeopterygidae, Archaeopteryginae,
Archaeopterygini, and Archaeopterygina. :) Ah, mandatory ranks....
=====> T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software