[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: New PaleoBios paper & Daanosaurus revisited
T. Michael Keesey wrote:
This is actually a bit ambiguous, because it could mean:
a) The last common ancestor of _Mamenchisaurus_ and _Omeisaurus_, plus
all descendants thereof, provided that that ancestor is not ancestral
to _Diplodocus_ or _Saltasaurus_. (node-based with qualifying clause)
b) The first ancestor of _Mamenchisaurus_ and _Omeisaurus_ which is
not ancestral to _Diplodocus_ or _Saltasaurus_, plus all descendants
thereof. (stem-based, with multiple internal specifiers)
I meant (a). The shorthand A+B terminology for a node-based clade came from
Taylor and Naish (2005).
David Marjanovic wrote:
> Martin-Rolland, V. (1999). Les sauropodes chinois, Revue de
> Paléobiologie. 18: 287-315.
Now that is a paper that _really_ needs to go on the Polyglot
I don't think so. It doesn't include a phylogenetic analysis -- or any hint
at an opinion about euhelopodid phylogeny --, and it doesn't justify any of
its many synonymy decisions.
I have to agree with David. The paper comes up short in justifying its many
referrals and synonomies.