[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Dinosauria 2nd Ed. - Phylogenetic Taxonomy
David Marjanovic wrote:
Megalosaurinae (Megalosaurus bucklandi <- Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis)
Eustreptospondylinae (Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis <- Megalosaurus
Bad. Depending on where *Eustreptospondylus* falls, either of these names
could include Avetheropoda, and Megalosaurinae could include
One way to avoid these potential problems is to have a "trapdoor" inserted
in the definition, such as changing the definition of Megalosaurinae to "all
megalosaurids closer to _Megalosaurus bucklandi_ than to _Eustreptospondylus
oxoniensis_". Therefore, if _Eustreptospondylus_ proves NOT to be a
megalosaurid, the definition of Megalosaurinae becomes nonsensical. This
prevents the absurd situation of having Megalosaurinae becoming more
inclusive than Megalosauridae.
Aesthetically, I'd still prefer to get rid of the old names Carnosauria and
I think the usage of both names over the past 15 years has made them more
Lithostrotia (Malawisaurus + Saltasaurus)
Hey, new name.
This name made an appearance in Wilson and Upchurch (2003), but was not
Nick Pharris wrote:
> Coelophysidae (Coelophysis + Syntarsus) (Holtz, 1994)
So, potentially, Coelophysidae = _Coelophysis_.
Yes, since _Syntarsus rhodesiensis_ appears to be a species of
This raises an interesting question: Can we have a Coelophysoidea without a
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!