[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Pterosaur origins

>>>_Coelurus_ and _Tanycolagreus_ form a clade (Coeluridae) at the
>base of the 
>>(from Senter's paper)
>>Under this topology, would Coeluroidea have priority over
>>as the least inclusive clade which includes _Coelurus_ and
>>Coeluridae was named by Marsh (1881), and Tyrannosauridae was named
>>Osborn (1906), and both Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea are

Under the ICZN rules, Coeluroidea would have priority over
Tyrannosauroidea if one chose to recognise a superfamily uniting
_Tyrannosaurus_ and _Coelurus_, yes. Of course, no-one is under any
obligation to do so - you could just as easily recognise two
superfamilies Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea that happen to be
sister taxa (though in this case, Coeluroidea would currently be
redundant with Coeluridae). Personally, I'd probably be cautious of
sinking Tyrannosauroidea into Coeluroidea unless the support for
uniting them was very strong.


        Christopher Taylor