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

Re: Meet me & see my website

> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:03:00 -0400
> From: "Nick Gardner" <ratites637@hotmail.com>
> 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?

Hi Nick,

The book you're referring to is:

        David M. Martill and Darren Naish, _Dinosaurs of the
        Isle of Wight_, 2001, published by the Palaeontologial

The word "Enigmosauria" occurs twice in the book: once in the index
and once in the caption to figure 9.1 on page 243 (near the start of
Chapter 9: _Saurischian Dinosaurs 2: Theropods_).  The diagram shows
that the name pertains to a group containing oviraptorosaurs and
therizinosaurs/segnosaurs, and the position of the marker suggests
that it's intended as a node rather than a stem.

HOWEVER, there is no definition: it's impossible to tell from the
diagram what the anchor taxa are -- even the oviraptorosaur and
therizinosaur/segnosaur are recognisable only from small sketches.
There is no prose whatsoever defining the name.  What's more, HP Naish
has explicitly disclaimed the name on-list, explaining that its
occurence in the figure was an oversight -- see

So with all that in mind, plus Dr. Tom's injunctions, it seems clear
that this is NOT a valid name, Mickey Mortimer's protestations to the
contrary notwithstanding (sorry, Mickey :-)

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Ashes and diamonds, foe and friend, we were all equal in
         the end" -- Pink Floyd, "The Final Cut"

Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at