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

Re: Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)

Mike Keesey wrote:

> However, Brontosauria could be retained for the clade that includes
> Prosauropoda (sensu stricto; =?Plateosauridae) and Sauropoda (or the more
> inclusive Anchisauria), but not basal sauropodomorphs (like _Saturnalia_,
> _Thecodontosaurus_, maybe _Efraasia_). Thus, it would approximate
> Olshevsky's usage of the term Brontosauria in terms of content.

That is how I used it; but it doesn't approximate Olshevsky's usage,
because he used the traditional, paraphyletic sense of Prosauropoda,
so his Brontosauria, as he published it, does include
_Thecodontosaurus_, etc.

You are correct when you say that Olshevsky put ALL prosauropods and sauropods into his Brontosauria. In fact, the only real reason Olshevsky erected "Brontosauria" was because he also thought segnosaurs were sauropodomorphs, and he need a name for the non-segnosaur sauropodomorphs. Take out the Segnosauria (as he later did), and Brontosauria=Sauropodomorpha.

Thus, a Prosauropoda+Sauropoda clade under current topologies would not have *exactly* the same content as Brontosauria sensu Olshevsky. However, I tip-toed around this by saying the new Brontosauria would have *approximately* the same content as the old. A few basal sauropodomorphs would certainly fall out - but probably no more than two or three (_Thecodontosaurus_, etc) , and the vast majority of sauropodomorphs would stay inside Brontosauria. So, this new Brontosauria would retain almost all of its original content. And what's a few genera between friends? :-)