[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]On Behalf Of
> Tim Williams
> 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.
As do I. (And thanks, Adam Yates, for posting about the JAES paper with the
> 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.
There is only the most minor "stability of content" issue here (i.e., a group
barely known at the time Tetanurae was coined).
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
Building 237, Room 1117
College Park, MD 20742
Phone: 301-405-4084 Email: email@example.com
Fax (Geol): 301-314-9661 Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796