[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Question for people who know about Phylocode:
Langer et al. (2009) pointed out that the oldest available
phylogenetic definition of Ceratosauria is synonymous with
Neotheropoda. They point out that Rowe and Gauthier (1990) defined
Ceratosauria as a node-based taxon this way: "We employ the name
Ceratosauria for the group including Ceratosaurus nasicornis,
Dilophosaurus wetherilli, Liliensternus liliensterni, Coelophysis
bauri, Syntarsus rhodesiensis, Syntarsus kayentakatae, Segisaurus
halli, Sarcosaurus woodi , and all other taxa stemming from their most
recent common ancestor".
Sereno (1998) defined Neotheropoda this way: "Coelophysis, Neornithes,
their most recent common ancestor and all descendants", and later
(2005), this way: "The least inclusive clade containing Coelophysis
bauri (Cope 1889) and Passer domesticus (Linnaeus 1758)."
Accepting the phylogenetic hypothesis of Rauhut (2003), that what
Gauthier called Ceratosauria is not monophyletic, with Ceratosaurus
being closer to Tetanurae than to Coelophysis, it seems that both
definitions group the same taxa, as expressed in Langer et al (2009).
Is there a reason for not using Ceratosauria instead of Neotheropoda?
The definition by Rowe and Gauthier (1990) seems like acceptably
constructed from the comments.