[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Taxon Search
Jaime Headden wrote-
<Except that he uses uncertain content as a reason to make some clades
inactive, like Galton and Upchurch's (2004) Anchisauria. So it's a
How clear _is_ "Anchisaurus, Ammosaurus, Riojasaurus, Melanorosaurus,
Camelotia, and Lessemsaurus" ?
If you would have read either Galton and Upchurch (2004) or the relevent
TaxonBase page, you would see that's not the definition. The definition is
"Anchisaurus and Melanorosaurus, their common ancestor, and all its
descendants," which is perfectly clear.
Or any clade that uses "Neornithes" as a
specifier, or refers to "all dinosaurs closer to [name] than to [name]"
formulations? Sereno (2005) details how these are ambiguous, uncertain, or
should be formulated clearly, basing these on specific wordings to erase
ambiguity. This is likely why it's inactive.
As you can see, this is not the reason. It's because of "the uncertain
relationships (and taxonomic status) of several of these taxa, the content
of such a taxon would remain ambiguous." But since Anchisaurus and
Melanorosaurus are the only specifiers, whether Lessemsaurus has uncertain
relationships, or Ammosaurus is a junior synonym of Anchisaurus shouldn't
matter. Sure, Anchisauria is just a subset of Sauropoda in Yates' topology,
but it's useful in Galton and Upchurch's.