[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)
On 8/24/05, Jay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Why not just abandon Brontosauria? It's original announcement was because of
> a purported
> relationship between therizinosaurs and sauropodomorphs. Clearly, no one is
> advocating that anymore.
> Also, it's based on Brontosaurus, itself invalid by synonymy.
*Subjective* synonymy. (But seemingly pretty solid.)
But we still use _Caenagnathidae_, for example. And, let's face it,
"Brontosauria" sounds a lot cooler than "Apatosauria". (But see
> We already have the names Plateosauridae, Plateosauria, Prosauropoda,
> Anchisauria - The topologies
> of all of which could change following a revision in cladistics. Eg.
> Anchisauria originally
> proposed in 2004 for the Anchisaurus + Melanorosaurus clade assumed a close
> relationship between
> these taxa; now 1 year latter, Anchisauria could include Anchisaurus and all
> other sauropodomorphs
> excluding Saturnalia, Thecodontosaurus, Plateosauridae, & Massospondylus. See
> http://dml.cmnh.org/2005Aug/msg00240.html for this.
> If topolgies are changing all the time, i'd take that to mean that the
> relationships aren't
> stable. Until they become stable, i see little point in introducing new names
> reusing/redefining redundant names beyond their original context.
Hear, hear. I, for one, would not like to see _Brachiosaurus_,
_Diplodocus_, _Saltasaurus_, etc. become "anchisaurs" or
"plateosaurs". Talk about confusion....