[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Greg Paul's new (or newly named) iguanodonts
Tom Holtz wrote:
> The original work of Gauthier, Clark & Benton, Parrish, & colleagues back in
> the 1980s was really to sort out this mess, and resolve that classic
> archosaurs fell into three clusters: dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and their kin;
> primitive guys (the traditional "proterosuchians" as well as Euparkeria and
> Proterochampsidae); and the croc-ankle cluster.
There was a fourth category (not so much a 'cluster'), which might be called
"WTF". Things like _Longisquama_ and _Sharovipteryx_ (_Podopteryx_) ended up
> And really: those who have argued for a "thecodont" origin since the 1970s
> (Tarsitano, Martin, etc.) argued for relationships with animals that
> thecodont workers (Charig, Parrish, Chatterjee) would not consider
> thecodonts at all!!
Except for maybe _Scleromochlus_ (which has popped up as a
prospective'pro-avian' once or twice). But yes, I know exactly what you mean.
The thing is, if we revive Thecodontia as a paraphyletic taxon, we also revive
the "blob" (as David puts it). These 'blobby' paraphyletic groups were
conveniently used as the ancestral stock for more 'advanced' groups, by way of
a stippled line (or even a finger-like protuberance, if we were really
confident). Thecodont to bird, condylarth to ungulate, and so on. But by
naming paraphyletic taxa simply to make classification 'easier' (or at least
more aesthetically pleasing) we risk resurrecting not only disused names, but
also the outdated concept behind the name. That's my concern. Even if a
'new-and-improved' Thecodontia had an explicitly defined content (under PN),
and not just be a 'blob', doesn't change the fact that the name would probably
be misused. Those who have argued for a "thecodont" origin since the 1970s
would ignore the
content of a rigorously defined (although still paraphyletic) "Thecodontia"
and simply focus on the fact that the name itself is now back in play, and
manipulated it for their own ends. (Cue maniacal laughter in the background.)
> (This is opposed to the Heilmann model, which did derive
> birds out of Euparkeria-like forms).
I think he might have put _Ornithosuchus_ there too. Not 100% sure though.
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i’m Initiative