[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New PaleoBios paper - diplodocoid phylogenetic taxonomy
> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:39:00 -0500
> From: "Tim Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> [Kind words snipped.]
> These kind of housekeeping papers are indispensable. I'd like to
> see the same thing done for basal sauropodomorphs and
> non-neornithine birds (get out the antacid....).
Well, the latter has largely been done --
Padian, K., J. R. Hutchinson and T. R. Holtz, Jr. 1999.
Phylogenetic definitions and nomenclature of the major
taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria
(Theropoda). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19:69-80.
Which is available on-line at
And also --
Holtz, Thomas. R., Jr. (1996). Phylogenetic Taxonomy of the
Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda). J. Paleont. 70(3),
(Not on-line to the best of my knowledge, though BioOne may have it.)
> The Diplodocoidea/Diplodicimorpha lends itself to this kind of PT
> study, given that (like the Titanosauriformes) the monophyly of this
> group is well-supported.
... except that _Haplocanthosaurus_ (and a few others) could easily be
in either :-)
> Diplodocoidea originally included Nemegtosauridae (now universally
> regarded as titanosaurs); thus Taylor and Naish (2005) neatly
> excised _Nemegtosaurus_ (and its eponymous clade) from the
Actually, that's Wilson and Sereno's (1998) definition that we
recommend; not a new one.
> Martin-Rolland, V. (1999). Les sauropodes chinois, Revue de
> PalÃobiologie. 18: 287-315.
Now that is a paper that _really_ needs to go on the Polyglot
> One way around this is to define Mamenchisauridae to be
> (_Mamenchisaurus_ + _Omeisaurus_, but not _Diplodocus_ or
> _Saltasaurus_), such that the definition includes an internal
> caveat. This way, if _Mamenchisaurus_ and _Omeisaurus_ are found to
> be paraphyletic relative to 'higher' sauropods, the clade
Ye-es. I think it's a matter of philosophy whether you like such
magic disappearing clades or not. I am not personally wild about them.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "If you are a fascinating writer, then you follow a deeper set
of rules which make the normal ones irrelevant. If not, then
you need to follow the normal rules until you get fascinating"
-- Greg Gunther.