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

Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete




T. Michael Keesey <mightyodinn@yahoo.com> wrote:

The naming of nodes is just provisional. Names will ultimately be
programmatically assigned to nodes based on their definitions. (I will probably
have to provisionally define a lot of neornithean taxa.)


Comments on the tree are welcome on- or off-list.

Just a few...

* The inclusion of _nomina dubia_ (e.g., _Palaeoscincus_, _Pteropelyx_, _Agathaumas_) is probably just a waste of space, and giving them equal billing to the valid genera gives them the illusion of legitimacy. Most are based on teeth or scrappy postcranial material, and named at a time when it was routine to give a new name to teeth and scrappy material.

* The use of "holotype" after each name is perhaps redundant, since the holotype, by definition, must be included in the genus.

As for for individual taxa:

Sullivan (2002, 2003) presented a strong case for removing _Yaverlandia_ from the Pachycephalosauria. That's what it isn't... As for what it is... who knows?

I had thought _Minmi_ lay outside the nodosaurid-ankylosaurid dichotomy; but I may be thinking of an old phylogeny. _Struthiosaurus_, I thought, was inside the Nodosauridae.

Why the paraphyletic/polyphyletic Hypsilophodontidae? (I'm not disagreeing with it, just curious about the source.)

Is _Magulodon_ a valid genus?

I don't believe _Avaceratops_ is a centrosaurine; it appears to be precede the Centrosaurinae-Chasmosaurinae dichotomy. Ceratopsinae is probably not the ideal choice to supplant Chasmosaurinae, due to the probably non-diagnostic nature of the _Ceratops montanus_ holotype. Also, there's a very good chance that _Ceratops_ is also outside the Centrosaurinae-Chasmosaurinae dichotomy, especially if its related to (even the same as) _Avaceratops_. In other words, there's no good evidence that _Ceratops_ belongs to the _Chasmosaurus_-_Triceratops_ clade.

_Mussaurus_ is a sauropod?

AFAIK, there's been no study that splits _Apatosaurus_ and _Brontosaurus_ into separate genera. (Bakker has done it; but that wasn't backed up by any phylogenetic or morphological study.)

Good luck with the Neornithes! I fear you're asking for trouble sorting out these dinosaurian fringe-dwellers!





Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail