[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Meet me & see my website
--- "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Steven Mahon
> > > Correct me I'm wrong, but there are no colleges
> > > universities offering
> > > degrees in either, if this has changed, I'd love
> > > 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.
Oh. Thanks didn't know that.
> > > 1. Even though I don't like apomorphy-based
> > > 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.
Ok. got to be cautious then....
> > > 2. The Clade(Passer > Spinosaurus) stem is
> > > 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.
Yup. That's what I've been doing.
> > And, since
> > Enigmosauria isnt defined (correct me if I'm wrong
> > again) but shouldn't it go in quotes?
> >I excluded Avimimus because I used The node
> > based Enigmosauria (Oviraptor + Enigmosaurus) &
> > common phylogenies have Avimimus right outside
> > point? (correct me if I'm wrong AGAIN)
> Most recent studies place Avimimus IN
> Oviraptorosauria in the more
> restricted sense.
Which definition? The (Oviraptor > Neornithes) one,
the (Oviraptor + Chirostenotes) one, or the (Oviraptor
> Therizinosaurus) one?
> > >
> > > 5. Alvarezsaurids probably were not the
> > > to Pygostylia, but more
> > > basal.
> > I'll look into that.
> Most recent studies show Alvarezsauridae outside
hhmmm... I might just put it in i.s. somewhere since
there are so many versions on where the alvies go....
Thanks for the advice,
> Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
> Vertebrate Paleontologist
> Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time
> University of Maryland College Park Scholars
> College Park, MD 20742
> Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
> Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT):
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!