[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pteros might be dinos?!? Oh no ...
> I mean that the concept of "Dinosauria" has never relied on the
> inclusion of Herrerasauridae (except, of course, in Novas'
> definition). It has generally relied on characters or on the inclusion
> of other taxa.
> The PhyloCode would not disallow Novas' definition, as emended above.
> But what's the point of including H. ischigualastensis as a specifier?
> Why not just make it Clade(M. bucklandii + I. bernissartensis)? What
> does the addition of H. ischigualastensis buy us?
Well, not that I am a Herrerasaurus advocate (it would not pay me),
just asking about what are "essential" members.