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

Re: questions about the Odontochelys study

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM, David Marjanovic
<david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
> No, except that Lepidosauromorpha might include the turtles in that case,
> and so might Lepidosauriformes, but I don't know if any definitions that
> make sense currently exist for these names.

I should have clarified -- I meant names for the testudine/lepidosaur
crown group, if that does not include archosaurs. (Lepidosauromorpha
and Lepidosauria are branch-based, and therefore it's extremely
unlikely that they could be crown groups.)

(Incidentally, under this hypothesis, pan-Lepidosauria and
Lepidosauromorpha are different clades--although Archosauromorpha and
pan-Archosauria are still the same.)

> And I don't recommend making such a name up just yet :-)

Why not, as long as the definition collapses should archosaurs prove
to be descended from the final common ancestor of testudines and

Well, there's another reason not to make up a name just yet--and
that's that I can't imagine nobody has *ever* thought to name such a
group, given how many other strange tetrapod groupings have been
named. There must be a name floating somewhere in the old literature.

("Reptilia" would almost be a good candidate but eh ... no.)

T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California