[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 its inclusion).


Cheers

Tim