[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
bucklandi)

Bad. Depending on where *Eustreptospondylus* falls, either of these names could include Avetheropoda, and Megalosaurinae could include Megalosauridae.

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 Coelurosauria... well.

I think the usage of both names over the past 15 years has made them more palatable.


Lithostrotia (Malawisaurus + Saltasaurus)

Hey, new name.

This name made an appearance in Wilson and Upchurch (2003), but was not defined.


Nick Pharris wrote:

> Coelophysidae (Coelophysis + Syntarsus) (Holtz, 1994)

So, potentially, Coelophysidae = _Coelophysis_.

Yes, since _Syntarsus rhodesiensis_ appears to be a species of _Coelophysis_.


This raises an interesting question: Can we have a Coelophysoidea without a Coelophysidae?



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/