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

Re: Heterodontosaurid with protofeathers

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Seems we don't really know the state for most
>> sauropodomorphs. Those embryonic titanosaurs are scaled, but who knows
>> about non-titanosaurian sauropodomorphs?
> Aside from _"Pelorosaurus" becklesii_ (basal titanosauriform), preserved 
> integument has been reported for diplodocids, according to Martin & Czerkas 
> (2000; Amer. Zool. 40: 687â694):
> "While the exact scale pattern is not known in detail, the sides of the body 
> of diplodocids were covered with raised studs some of which are over ten 
> centimeters in diameter. They do not cover dermal ossicles as in the armored 
> scutes of crocodilians."
> I haven't seen this described elsewhere, and I have no idea which specimen is 
> being referred to.

Okay, change "non-titanosaurian sauropodomorphs" to "non-neosauropod
sauropodomorphs". We could still have bristly mamenchisaurids for all
we know. (I doubt it, but I'm just sayin'....)

> >From here:
>> http://phylonom.wildprehistory.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12
>> With this new evidence from ornithischians, it looks like Avifilopluma
>> might even include all of Dinosauria, or even Ornithodira
>> (Dinosauromorpha + Pterosauromorpha)!
> Yes, that's true. ÂWow. ÂThis highlights some of the perils associated with 
> apomorphy-based definitions: (1) establishing homology; (2) having the 
> content of an apomorphy-based clade expand dramatically when the phylogenetic 
> bracket for the particular apomorphy expands.

"Perils" is such a charged word. Let's say "potential ramifications".

>> Shouldn't that be "confucii"? Oh well....
> I thought that was strange as well. ÂIn a similar vein, we have 
> _Confuciusornis_ rather than _Confuciornis_. ÂI've wondered if when genera 
> or species are erected that incorporate the names of revered historical or 
> religious figures, then a conscious decision is made to keep the entire name 
> intact, as a mark of respect. ÂAfter all, we also have _Lazarussuchus_, 
> which was named after Lazarus, a biblical (New Testament) character.

I suspect that it has more to do with people seeing the whole name as
a morpheme (i.e., discrete unit of language), since names generally
are morphemes in isolating languages like English and (especially)
Mandarin. Thus they fail to recognize the grammatical parts of the
name, and assume they can just tack something on to the end. (A good
test would be to see if people who speak fusional languages like
German or Russian make this mistake less often.)
T. Michael Keesey
Technical Consultant and Developer, Internet Technologies
Glendale, California