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

Re: Meet me & see my website

Steven Mahon wrote-

Ooh. I didn't know there was a Dilo + Neo clade... have to add that....

It's not actually a {Dilophosaurus + Neotheropoda} clade, it's just that in your cladogram, the node is the same as the apomorphy-based clade Averostra (Paul 2002). Averostra is the clade {Avepoda with at least one accessory maxillary opening in the lateral wall of the antorbital fossa that led into a bony mediorostral maxillary sinus + Dromaeosauridae}. I thought that you were aware of it, perhaps, because you used Avepoda, also named and defined by Paul (2002). Avepoda is clade {Theropoda with feet in which metatarsal I did not contact the distal tarsals + Neotheropoda}. Isn't there a defintion of Neotheropoda that includes Coelophysis?

I had REAL trouble doing this section... REAL
trouble... I read some earlier posts from a few years
ago & found out (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
stem def. of Oviraptorosauria came out (defined)
BEFORE the node-based one. I think the book it was in
had uncertain validity though. Anyways, whaich of
those Enigmosauria def.'s came out first? And, since
Enigmosauria isnt defined (correct me if I'm wrong
again) but shouldn't it go in quotes?

As I noted in my original post, Enigmosauria has not been formally defined. The name was proposed by HP Keesey awhile back and it later appeared in a book. I would personally like to know the citation for that book, I think it's the Isle of Wight book... I'm unsure, what is it done in cases in which a taxon is named but not defined?

Like I said above this section was hard to do because
of all the definitions... the definition of
Ovraptorosauria I used was (Oviraptor > Neornithes) &
I thought the only other one was (Oviraptor +
Chirostnotes)? (the same as Oviraptoroidea). So is
that the third definition (Correct me if I'm wrong
AGAIN)? 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)

I was fairly certain there is a published definition that excludes segnosaurs. I could well be wrong. However, is there a rule in PhyloCode that requires that the earliest proposed definition is the one that should be used? Also, Avimimus has not found as the sistergroup to segnosaurs and oviraptorosaurs in any published analysis. It came out as an oviraptorosaur in the published analyses by the AMNH team. I performed a brief, unpublished analysis in which it came out as a paravian, more basal than the troodontids, however, I do not consider that analysis to be of much value (no characters were used that would have united A. with the oviraptorosaurs, it used a lot of suprageneric OTUs, such as a Troodontidae that did not take into account the basal troodont Sinovenator, and I know there were typos because of the source I used).

Nick Gardner

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail