[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Pterosaur origins
Christopher Taylor wrote-
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.
Yet Tyrannosauroidea has a stem-based definition that would include Coelurus
in Senter's topology, so you can't have Coeluroidea and Tyrannosauroidea as
It's the same situation as Sereno's Spinosauroidea and Oviraptoroidea vs.
Megalosauroidea and Caenagnathoidea.
This seems to be a very good paper, btw. It's basically the Theropod
Working Group analysis with 22 added taxa and 129 added characters. Looks
to test many hypotheses such as Maryanska et al.'s (2002) and Mayr et al.'s
Another interesting part is finding Chirostenotes, Hagryphus and Elmisaurus
as oviraptorids, while Caenagnathus is more basal. Of course the
undescribed Triebold taxon seems to falsify the hypothesis Chirostenotes and
Caenagnathus aren't the same kind of animal.