[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Augusto Haro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I suppose this later inclusion should not be considered as
> the original meaning of the name. If not, Ceratosauria would
> have to be phylogenetically defined as including both neoceratosaurs
> and tetanurans to cope with the original meaning.
I think you might be overstating the importance of "original meaning" in
framing definitions and converting time-honored groups to clades. There's no
rule that says you *must* adhere to the original meaning of a name when
converting it into a clade name.
For example, the name Ornithosuchia was originally erected by Huene to include
_Ornithosuchus_ (he erected Ornithosuchidae at the same time). However, since
then Ornithosuchia has been used for a much larger archosaur clade, and some
definitions (e.g., "the most inclusive clade Aves but not Crocodylia") would
actually result in clade Ornithosuchia excluding _Ornithosuchus_.
Personally, I would prefer that Ornithosuchia be defined such that it includes
_Ornithosuchus_ - for the sole reason that the name was erected specifically to
Similarly, Pseudosuchia was erected specifically to *exclude* crocodiles (hence
the name). Yet some definitions of Pseudosuchia allow the
crocodilian-containing clade Suchia to be a subset of Pseudosuchia, which
strikes me as ridiculous.
In short, for clades such as Ceratosauria, Ornithosuchia and Pseudosuchia I
think the only nod we should make to "original meaning" is that the definition
reflects the intent behind the name. Ceratosauria was clearly intended to
include _Ceratosaurus_; so even if ornithomimids had been originally included
in this group (they weren't), it shouldn't really matter to the current