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

Re: Are dinosaurs really reptiles?



On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:18 PM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > Of course, this potentially leaves the crown group of testudines,
> > lepidosaurs, and archosaurs without a name. (_Diapsida_ would suffice
> > under some phylogenetic hypotheses, but not ones where testudines are
> > outside of lepidosaurs + archosaurs.)
>
>  On the other hand, as long as the turtles stay outside of Diapsida, this
> clade has the same known content as Sauropsida;

Emphasis on "known". There would be many stem-group members which were
sauropsids but not part of the crown group (and some could be known to
us already but not recognized as such). Naming the crown group would
help to prevent making unjustified inferences about them.

Problem is, there's no good name for the crown group that I know of.
"Reptilia" has too much baggage. "Pholidota" was once used for a
similar taxon to "Reptilia", but now it's a clade of mammals. Maybe a
new name would be a good idea.

> if the turtles are inside,
> they are crown-group diapsids, and for the diapsid crown-group probably the
> name Neodiapsida will win out.

Or _Diapsida_, with _Apo-Diapsida_ for the apomorphy-based clade. Either way.
-- 
T. Michael Keesey
Director of Technology
Exopolis, Inc.
2894 Rowena Avenue Ste. B
Los Angeles, California 90039
http://exopolis.com/
--
http://3lbmonkeybrain.blogspot.com/