[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 
(read on)

Historically, Benedetto fist proposed Herreasauridae for Herreasaurus + 
Staurikosaurus. Novas
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 
herreasaurians. 
Hypotheticlaly, if a non-Herreasaurid herreasaurian showed all the characters 
of Herreasauridae,
it would be likely moved to Herreasauridae. So, by only only showing partial 
Herreasaurid
characters gaurantees it's membership in Herreasauria.  

Clearly this is a result of incompletness.




--- Evangelos Giakoumatos <dynamosaurus@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/05, Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> 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
> Herrerasuridae?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dynamosaurus imperiosus 1905
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/