[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete
T. Michael Keesey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The naming of nodes is just provisional. Names will ultimately be
programmatically assigned to nodes based on their definitions. (I will
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...
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!
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.