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

Re: Thecodontia defined and saurischian Marasuchus



On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:22:31 -0800, Mickey Mortimer
<Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
> Thecodontia (Protorosaurus + Thecodontosaurus)
> Suppose there is such thing as a thecodont now, and it's a
> heterodefinitional synonym of Archosauromorpha.

Not quite--_Archosauromorpha_ is stem-based, so there would be
non-thecodontian archosauromorphs.

> Were protorosaurs,
> rhynchosaurs and trilophosaurs ever thought of as thecodonts?  I figured
> they were eosuchians or something back in the day.

Not to mention crocodylians, pterosaurs, dinosaurs....
 
> Archosauria (Crocodylus + Megalosaurus)
> I actually like this definition, since birds weren't originally archosaurs,
> right?

Agreed.
 
> Ornithodira (Vultur + Pterosaurus)
> Well, the absence of a Pterosaurus invalidates this name and the next two.

Not so--_Pterosaurus_ is a hymenopteran genus. Thus, _Ornithodira_
sensu Kischlat is roughly synonymous with _Bilateria_,
_Pterosauromorpha_ sensu Kischlat is roughly synonymous with
_Ecdysozoa_ or _Protostomia_, and _Dinosauromorpha_ sensu Kischlat is
roughly synonymous with _Deuterostomia_. :)

(Talk about lapsus calami....)

> Neotheropoda (Ceratosaurus + Allosaurus)
> I have to agree with Wilson et al. (2003) that the more inclusive
> (Coelophysis+birds) definition has priority.

CMIIW, but I think that, as originally used by Bakker, coelophysoids
(well, podokesaurids) were explicitly excluded. Thus something like
this or clade(_Allosaurus_ not _Coelophysis_) would be preferable.
(And clade(_Ceratosaurus_ and _Allosaurus_) seems better, since it's
not potentially a synonym of _Tetanurae_.)

>                                  `--+--Rioarribasaurus
Yipes--the ICZN explicitly rejected that genus.

--Mike Keesey