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

Re: Phylogenies, science, tea-time and more...



On 8/25/05, Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2005/8/25, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
> > IMHO it should have been wiped out in 1975 when the birds were added, and
> > also because dinosaurs aren't lizards. (Owen did coin his Dinosauria as a
> > suborder of lizards.) But it's clearly too late for that.
> 
> Eh? Are you sure that Dinosauria originally was thought as a *lizard*
> suborder? (As far as I know, Dinosauria was erected because they
> didn't match any known reptile group.)

"The combination of such characters ... will, it is presumed, be
deemed sufficient ground for establishing a distinct tribe, or
suborder, of Saurian reptiles, for which I would propose the name of
Dinosauria." (Owen, 1842)

If course, I'm not exactly sure what comprised _Sauria_ in Owen's
mind; it's been everything from a synonym of Lacertilia to a synonym
of crown clade _Reptilia_.
 
> Suppose that we abandon the term Dinosauria. How would we call the
> group formed by the _Iguanodon bernissartensis_, _Megalosaurus bucklandi_, 
> their most
> recent common ancestor and all of its descendants?

Why does everyone leave out poor old _Hylaeosaurus armatus_? (I guess
it *is* very, very likely redundant and not as well known as
_Iguanodon bernissartensis_, but still ... it *is* one of the original
three! And second listed, to boot....)

—Mike Keesey