[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Christopher Taylor wrote-
> The name 'Enigmosauria', or some variation thereof, has been used online
> quite a bit for the oviraptorosaur+therizinosaur clade. Has this name ever
> actually been officially published, and what is the reference for it if it
Hahaha... Okay Tom and Jaime, I don't think any of us wants to get into THIS
So Chris, here are the facts-
Naish, Hutt and Martill, 2001. Saurischian dinosaurs 2: Theropoda. In
Martill and Naish, eds. Dinosaurs of the Isle of Wight. The Palaeontological
Association. p 242-309.
Naish et al. (2001) published the name as a label for a clade (containing at
least oviraptorosaurs and therizinosauroids) in a figure caption. It was
originally supposed to be discussed and defined in the text, but was later
removed. The use of the name in the figure caption was not caught in time,
and it was thus accidentally published. There was no phylogenetic
definition associated with the name. The ICZN has no rules about taxa like
Enigmosauria, which are above the family group level. The Phylocode is not
implemented yet, though Enigmosauria and almost all proposed theropod clades
would be invalid if it were (their definitions are insufficient or lacking).
Naish et al. (2001) was in a peer-reviewed book whose nomenclature (eg.
Istiodactylus) is accepted.
Put those facts together as you will.
Undergraduate, Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington
The Theropod Database - http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Home.html
- From: Christopher Taylor <email@example.com>