[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Even more last papers for 2005
David Marjanovic wrote:
In other words, the etymology was deliberate.
Yes. Most likely 'Pseudosuchia' was intended to exclude crocodilians, which
is why the name was chosen.
More importantly, people followed the original intent = the etymology
throughout the next century by always excluding the crocodyl...iforms at
least. In many cases it simply doesn't make sense to return to the concept
the original author had; in this one it does.
Yes, Pseudosuchia is one case where the original content and traditional
usage differ. For most of its history B.C. ("before cladistics"),
Pseudosuchia became a wastebasket group for basal archosaurs, with aetosaurs
(the founding members of Zittel's Pseudosuchia) actually excluded. It came
to be that every kind of 'thecodont' that wasn't a proterosuchian, a
phytosaur or an aetosaur was put in the Pseudosuchia. Thus, rauisuchians,
sphenosuchians, _Euparkeria_, Ornithosuchus_, and even _Sharovipteryx_
(=_Podopteryx_) and _Longisquama_ were regarded as 'pseudosuchians' - and
the ancestors of birds were thought to lie somewhere among this lot.