[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
In Sereno's defense, he realized the error of his ways in framing a definition
of Ceratosauria that included _Coelophysis_ (but not _Ceratosaurus_) as an
internal specifier. Thus, he later (2005) coined a new definition that
replaced _Coelophysis_ with _Ceratosaurus_. This was a good move (although
belated), because it meant that _Ceratosaurus_ is guaranteed to be a member of
the clade that takes its name, irrespective of _Ceratosaurus_'s phylogenetic
position relative to other theropods.
However long before this point, Holtz and Padian (1995) had erected a
stem-based definition for the clade Ceratosauria ("All theropods closer to
_Ceratosaurus_ than to birds"). This definition was essentially retained by
Sereno (2005) ("_Ceratosaurus nasicornis_ but not _Passer domesticus_").
Personally, I think this definition is fine, although I agree that it can't
hurt to include _Allosaurus fragilis_ as an external specifier.
At one stage, Marsh (1895) included ornithomimids in the Ceratosauria.
--- On Fri, 11/20/09, Augusto Haro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> From: Augusto Haro <email@example.com>
> Subject: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
> To: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Question for people who know about
> 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)
> Ceratosauria as a node-based taxon this way: "We employ the
> Ceratosauria for the group including Ceratosaurus
> Dilophosaurus wetherilli, Liliensternus liliensterni,
> bauri, Syntarsus rhodesiensis, Syntarsus kayentakatae,
> halli, Sarcosaurus woodi , and all other taxa stemming from
> their most
> recent common ancestor".
> Sereno (1998) defined Neotheropoda this way: "Coelophysis,
> their most recent common ancestor and all descendants", and
> (2005), this way: "The least inclusive clade containing
> bauri (Cope 1889) and Passer domesticus (Linnaeus 1758)."
> Accepting the phylogenetic hypothesis of Rauhut (2003),
> that what
> Gauthier called Ceratosauria is not monophyletic, with
> 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
> The definition by Rowe and Gauthier (1990) seems like
> constructed from the comments.