[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladograms reflecting the newest data
warning: I'll probably ramble on here
Presently, that characters used to diagnose Herreasauria would likely be the
SAME AS THOSE to be
found in Herreasauridae because this a result of the membership of the two taxa
Historically, Benedetto fist proposed Herreasauridae for Herreasaurus +
defined Herreasauridae as a node based taxon comprising these two specifers.
Support for a
Herreasaurus+Staurikosaurus clade seems pretty solid. Langer (2004), points out
that as a result
of this there was no name for the stem leading to Herreasauridae. Herreasauria
was defined as all
taxa closer to Herreasauridae than to Sauropodomorpha+Theropoda.
So, these taxa may include Chindesaurus & other weakly supported taxa.
So Evangelos, i agree when you say that Chindesaurus doesn't rest in
Herreasauridae but in
Herreasauria instead. The lack of a list of characters diagnosing
Herreasauridae from Herreasauria
is probably because of the weak support of most non-Herreasaurid
Hypotheticlaly, if a non-Herreasaurid herreasaurian showed all the characters
it would be likely moved to Herreasauridae. So, by only only showing partial
characters gaurantees it's membership in Herreasauria.
Clearly this is a result of incompletness.
--- Evangelos Giakoumatos <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/05, Michael Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > My personal preferences are-
> > Langer (2004) for Dinosauria.
> > Rauhut (2003) for Coelophysoidea.
> > Carrano et al. (2002) for Ceratosauria.
> > Holtz et al. (2004) for Tetanurae.
> > Hwang et al. (2004) and modifications (Lu, 2004; Xu and Norell, 2004;
> > Kirkland et al., 2005; Novas and Pol, 2005; Xu and Zhang, 2005) for
> > Coelurosauria.
> > Holtz (2004) for Tyrannosauroidea.
> > Kobayashi (2004) for Ornithomimosauria.
> > Senter et al. (2004) for dromaeosaurs.
> > Yates (2004) for Sauropodomorpha.
> > Upchurch et al. (2004) and Wilson (2002) (and modifications of the latter-
> > Allain et al., 2004; Harris and Dodson, 2004; Rauhut et al., 2005) for
> > Sauropoda.
> > Butler (2005) for Ornithischia.
> > Galton and Upchurch (2004) for Stegosauria.
> > Hill et al. (2003) and Vickaryous et al. (2004) for Ankylosauria.
> > Norman (2004) for Iguanodontia.
> > Horner et al. (2004) for Hadrosauridae.
> > Williamson and Carr (2002) for Pachycephalosauria.
> > Xu et al. (2002) for Ceratopsia.
> > Although the above are the most accurate cladograms based on phylogenetic
> > analyses in my opinion, newer finds necessarily alter some of their
> > conclusions. Shuvosaurus is a crurotarsan, for instance, which affects
> > Rauhut (2003). Also, none are very comprehensive if you consider
> > fragmentary remains. For cladograms which are that comprehensive, you'll
> > need to look online. I have a theropod one which I obviously prefer up at
> > http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html . For
> > other dinosaurs, the Dinosauricon and
> > dinosauria.com<http://dinosauria.com>used to be good
> > resources, but the former's new version is still in prep and the latter is
> > outdated.
> > Mickey Mortimer
> > Mickey's Theropoda cladogram does not include the Herrerasauria (and for
> good reason based on their primitive characters). Cleverly hiding in the
> Non-theropods link I found what I was looking for...Herrerasauria firmly
> planted in Saurischia and not Theropoda or Dinosauria.
> In my understanding Chindesaurus does not qualify for Herrerasauridae, and
> so must sit in Herrerasauria because of these features (Long and Murry,
> 1995): (a) an astragalus whose ventral articular surface features a
> prominent groove (b) the glutealform shape of the astragalus' distal
> surface.(c) the absence of a fibular facet on the astragalus.
> Yet, the following characters are shared between Chindesaurus and
> Herrerasaurus and may suggest C.'s placement in the Herreradauridae: (a) two
> sacral vertebrae (b) the brevis fossa is absent (a possible? apomorphic
> reversal uniting Chindesaurus with Herrerasaurus and Staurikosaurus),
> (c) dorsal
> centra that are anteroposteriorly short and traversely compresed, (d) the
> anterior iliac notch features a lateral vertical ridge (Novas, 1997)
> Diagnostically, what are the features that contrast Herrerasauria with
> Dynamosaurus imperiosus 1905
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.