[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ankylosauria and Scelidosaurus
Jay <email@example.com> wrote:
Another possibility would be Ankylosauria be *restricted to Nodosauridae +
One potential downside to the above definition is that we might have a
situation in which there are traditional ankylosaurs that fall outside the
clade bounded by _Nodosaurus_ and _Ankylosaurus_. For example, if future
analyses uphold the validity of Polacanthidae, then polacanthids would not
be ankylosaurs under the "Nodosauridae+Ankylosauridae" definition.
In this case, it doesn't really matter if Nodosauridae turn out to be
paraphletic to Ankylosauridae or
Given that Nodosauridae (stem-based) is defined by Sereno to include
_Nodosaurus_ and _Panoplosaurus_ but not _Ankylosaurus_, a paraphyletic
Nodosauridae would probably be invalid.
Bottomline: Wheather Scelidosaurus becomes is closer to Ankylosauria or
outside Eurypoda isn't
going to change the clade names, which seem pretty stable in my opinion
(the definitions of).