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

Re: Meet me & see my website



--- Nick Gardner <ratites637@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Ok maybe I wont use Averostra right because of
different analyses. Yes there is a definition of
Neotheropoda that includes Coelophysis & it was
defined but it outlawed by Phylocode because it didnt
follow the original usage.

> 
> 
> >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).

I'll move Avimimus then

   Thanks for the advice, 
       Steven Mahon
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Gardner
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months
> FREE*  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com