[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.