[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Even more last papers for 2005
Mickey Mortimer wrote:
I must agree regarding the definitions. However, I don't think etymology
should matter when it comes to Pseudosuchia. The more important factor is
that Pseudosuchia didn't include crocodilians when it was originally named
- it included two aetosaurs and Dyoplax.
It's effectively the same thing, in this case. As you say, Pseudosuchia was
erected by Zittel to include three taxa that were superficially
crocodilian-like, but which were *not* crocodilian. The name "false
crocodiles" reflects this, so the etymology is an important factor since it
captures the original intent.
What's more disturbing is that Senter defines Ornithosuchia in a way which
probably excludes Ornithosuchus, which has been noted as a flaw in this
definition for several years.
Yes, this is the other major problem. For Ornithosuchia, Senter has
effectively followed Gauthier (who probably intended for _Ornithosuchus_ to
be included in Ornithosuchia, but did not frame a definition to guarantee