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

Re: Dinosauricon Phylogeny: complete

--- Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> * 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 designation of _nomen dubium_ can be a rather subjectice matter.
That said, I was looking into a way to indicate that a particular incertae
sedis taxon might be synonymous with another taxon (probably by placing
[synonym?] after it).

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

This cladogram is actually supposed to be a cladogram of specimens, a basic
tree for "hanging" names on. 
> 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?

It's removed from other pachycephalosaurs.
IIRC, didn't someone (Sereno?) have it as an *advanced* pachycephalosaur?

> I had thought _Minmi_ lay outside the nodosaurid-ankylosaurid dichotomy; but 
> I may be thinking of an old phylogeny.

I think so.

> _Struthiosaurus_, I thought, was inside the Nodosauridae.

Still possible.

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

I may be revising this some more.
> Is _Magulodon_ a valid genus?

Whoops -- you're right; I'll remove it.

> 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.

True, I should update this section.

> _Mussaurus_ is a sauropod?

If we use Wilson & Sereno's definition (Clade(_Saltasaurus_ <-
_Plateosaurus_)), it could be.
(I don't think this is a good definition, but it's the only one out there so

> 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.)

There's also no objective criterion for deciding whether or not to split them
into separate genera.
You must have missed the discussions about my provisional treatment of genera.
See here: http://dino.lm.com/terms/display.php?name=Genus
Using this as a rule, the only way _Brontosaurus_ could be synonymized with
_Apatosaurus_ is if _ajax_ and _excelsus_ were synonyms.

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

Heh heh -- someday they'll be sorted out ... maybe.

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

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).