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

Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?



> (Condors probably find themselves perfectly exemplary.)

I guess condors may have more practical things to solve with their
brains than thinking how exemplary for phylogenetic definitions they
are... :-)

> Best you could do might be "closest in resemblance to the ancestor" in
> which case we should probably be using a tinamou species....

I suppose in practice any bird is the same; we suppose all neornithine
birds to be more related between themselves than with Ceratosaurus,
and what seemingly matters is their phylogenetic position instead of
their morphology (I do not mean that we should not  choose a basal
tinamou as an OTU in a phylogenetic analysis of some taxon basal to
the Neornithes for which we want neornithean representatives). If this
supposition is not truth, Ceratosauria would just be a group of
neornithean birds.

We may even alternatively some neotetanuran theropod Marsh considered
as a non-ceratosaurian theropod when erecting the name Ceratosauria,
in order to keep with the original name. I do not know what was
Ceratosauria considered to include or exclude by Marsh  (1884; I do
not have the paper), but according to Sereno (2005), it was erected as
a monotypic taxon.