[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
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)
Crocodyliformes (Crocodylus <- Protosuchus)
Not *C.* _+_ *P.*?
Kischlat presents preliminary results of (his?) analysis, showing the
Crocodiles and even *Euparkeria* are dinosauromorphs! Yay! :-(