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

RE: Meet me & see my website



> From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> Steven Mahon
>
> > Correct me I'm wrong, but there are no colleges or
> > universities offering
> > degrees in either, if this has changed, I'd love to
> > know.
>
> I thought the University of Pennsylvania offered a
> Paleobiology degree??

Nope.  For your undergraduate career, you'll want to major in either Geology
(Earth Science; Earth & Planetary Science: names vary by university) or
Biology (Zoology; Bioscience; etc.), and take a number of classes in the
other field.  Your undergraduate time should be about getting the basics you
need in order to get into graduate school.  Even there your degree won't be
in "Paleontology" or "Paleobiology", at least not on paper.  Universities
normally issue degrees by Department, and the paleontologists of the world
are mostly in Geology and Biology departments.

> > 1. Even though I don't like apomorphy-based clades,
> > the node containing
> > Dilophosaurus and the neotheropods would be
> > Averostra.
>
> Ooh. I didn't know there was a Dilo + Neo clade...
> have to add that....

This has been proposed in some studies, but is not found in other analyses.

> > 2. The Clade(Passer > Spinosaurus) stem is actually
> > the node Avetheropoda
> > (Allosaurus + Neornithes), I believe.
>
Actually, the stem there is NOT named yet.  I've argued that Neotetanurae
would be better there...

> Hhm.... 1. Wasn't Neotetanurae defined first? (A
> pet-peeve of mine is NOT using clades that are
> synonomous w/ clades that were defined first.)

This is a REALLY tricky one.  The word "Avetheropoda" was defined first
(1988 vs. 1994).  The use of Avetheropoda and Neotetanurae on a
numercially-derived cladogram was nearly simultaneous (1994).  Formulaic
definitions of these names were both provided in 1997. I'm going to have to
hunt down the exact dates the Currie & Padian Encyclopedia vs. the Sereno
1997 paper came out...

> Anyways, whaich of
> those Enigmosauria def.'s came out first?

In terms of the scientific literature?  None of them.  Please don't use it
as a formal term.

> And, since
> Enigmosauria isnt defined (correct me if I'm wrong
> again) but shouldn't it go in quotes?

Yes!!

>I excluded Avimimus because I used The node
> based Enigmosauria (Oviraptor + Enigmosaurus) & don't
> common phylogenies have Avimimus right outside that
> point? (correct me if I'm wrong AGAIN)

Most recent studies place Avimimus IN Oviraptorosauria in the more
restricted sense.

> >
> > 5. Alvarezsaurids probably were not the sistergroup
> > to Pygostylia, but more
> > basal.
>
> I'll look into that.

Most recent studies show Alvarezsauridae outside Eumaniraptora.

                Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
                College Park, MD  20742
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796