[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
Paleontologist site!

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.