[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: "Thecodonts" (was RE: On the subject of mysterious absences...The Answer)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:
> > From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Adam
> > BTW Is "thecodont" still a useful term? Or is it too inclusive?
> Too paraphyletic. It is basal archosauriforms, crurotarsans (aka
> pseudosuchians) minus crocodylomorphs, and basal ornithodirans
> (lagerpetonids, _Marasuchus_, _Scleromochlus_, silesaurs, but not dinosaurs
> or pterosaurs).
Out of curiousity, is it really fair to incorporate taxa into this
label that were not described during the period it received the most
use? I'm referring to "silesaurs" here. This may be an entirely moot
discussion, but I'm fairly certain in that period, "silesaurs" would
have probably been lumped into Ornithischia based on some (likely
convergent!) similarities. :-)