[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mike Keesey wrote:
I really don't see why this is a problem. If abelisaurs are tetanurans,
then they're tetanurans.
Yes, Mickey M. feels the same way. True, as a stem- err... branch-based
clade, Tetanurae is an idea as much as a category. The fact that you both
agree makes me re-think this. But I think Sereno's "stability of content"
is important here.
Apart from the problems raised by you and Tim, it's kind of ridiculous to
base a clade whose name means "stiff tails" on a manual character! If
_Tetanurae_ were to be apomorphy-based at all (which is probably not a
great idea), it should be based on a caudal character.
Apomorphy-based definitions for any clade are a bad idea, IMHO. They're a
little too close for comfort to those old "key" characters used in
pre-cladistic days. But to give credit where credit's due, Gauthier & de
Queiroz's (2001) apomorphy-based clades are at least named after the same
characters they denote (Avialae, Aviremigia, etc).
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001