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

Re: baryonix

On 9/15/07, Tobi Hautekiet <darth_tobi@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Im sorry to bring this up but i im not such an dino expert as you guys and i
> cant get a straight awnser out of google, is baryonix a carnosaur? you see i
> know that he was a saurishian and that he's a therapod but i'm stil triyng
> to master the system, you know, all the groups and orders, i believe
> baryonix a part of the spinosaur familie, but anyway. Please just tell me.

Many researchers no longer bother with ranks like "order" or "family"
any more. Instead, they just associate names with clade definitions.
(A "clade" is an ancestor and all of its descendants.) _Carnosauria_,
for example, has been defined as the first ancestor of _Allosaurus_
which is not also ancestral to modern birds, and all descendants of
that ancestor. This includes _Allosaurus_ by definition*, and it's
widely agreed that sinraptorids and carcharodontosaurids belong as
well. Some researchers, such as Rauhut, do find that spinosaurids and
some other "classic carnosaurs" (e.g., _Megalosaurus_) belong, but
that's currently a minority opinion. Further research will help secure
one view or another.

In any case, _Baryonyx_ is a part of Clade _Spinosauridae_ by
definition, since _Spinosauridae_ has been defined as the last common
ancestor of _Baryonyx_ and _Spinosaurus_, and all descendants of that

* Unless _Allosaurus_ were ancestral to modern birds, a logical
possiility which can safely be ignored in actuality.

T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
Exopolis, Inc.
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039