[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
lepidosaurs?

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