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

Re: Thecodontia defined and saurischian Marasuchus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:22 AM

Thecodontia (Protorosaurus + Thecodontosaurus)

IMHO the idea of defining Thecodontia is at least as wrongheaded as that of defining Reptilia. Thecodontia is _meant_ to be paraphyletic! Even more so than Reptilia (which is older than 1859)!

Suppose there is such thing as a thecodont now, and it's a
heterodefinitional synonym of Archosauromorpha.  Were protorosaurs,
rhynchosaurs and trilophosaurs ever thought of as thecodonts?  I figured
they were eosuchians or something back in the day.

Rhynchosaurs were (of all things...) rhynchocephalians, protorosaurs were first lizards and then "eosuchians", and I guess trilophosaurs were "eosuchians", too...

Archosauria (Crocodylus + Megalosaurus)
I actually like this definition, since birds weren't
originally archosaurs, right?

Right. Archosauria was a subclass/superorder of Reptilia.

Crocodylotarsi (Crocodylus <- Vultur)

Crurotarsi (Crocodylus + Belodon + Ornithosuchus)

And it really can't be the other way around? :-(

Dromaeosuchia (Crocodylus + Ornithosuchus)

Was it necessary to name that clade?

Ornithosuchia (Ornithosuchus <- Crocodylus, Vultur)

Fine! :-)

Crocodyliformes (Crocodylus <- Protosuchus)

Not *C.* _+_ *P.*?

Kischlat presents preliminary results of (his?) analysis, showing the
following topology-

Crocodiles and even *Euparkeria* are dinosauromorphs! Yay! :-(