[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
Again I don't see the danger. So we'll have to say "but none of your supposed
avimorph thecodonts fall within Thecodontia" as opposed to "but none of your
supposed avimorph thecodonts fall within Thecodontia, which hasn't been a
recognized group since the 70's." They will look only slightly less foolish,
and I think your point was apt- we give them too much credit if we think
anything we do can give them an advantage. These are the people whose response
to the thecodont objection is to cite pre-cladistic general textbooks from
twenty years ago as an authority on theropod phylogenetics and taxonomy.
Remember these gems from Feduccia et al. (2005)?
"Like the term "thecodont", a collective term to describe Triassic basal
archosaurs, coelurosaur and carnosaur describe, respectively, small and large
"To illustrate the difficulty of defining the various dinosaur groups, Carroll
(1988, p. 290) pointed out that "The 'carnosaur' families may each have evolved
separately from different groups that have been classified as coelurosaurs.""
The Theropod Database- http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Home.html
i'm EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
> Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:47:14 -0800
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> CC: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
> Michael Mortimer :
>> I'm no fan of BANDits and paraphyletic groups, but I don't see the big
>> worry here. If they define Thecodontia paraphyletically, it will
>> still indicate a limited range of taxa that can be used to test
>> phylogenetic hypotheses.
> and Mike Talor wrote:
>> Right -- this seems like a GOOD thing. Half the reason BANDitism has
>> clung on as long as it has done is its vagueness. If its proponents
>> make the fatal mistake of nailing down precisely what (paraphyletic)
>> group they think DID give rise to birds, they are suddenly
>> that much easier to refute.
> You guys are giving the BANDits far too much credit. The BANDits won't be the
> ones who define Thecodontia - they don't do PT. And if somebody else does
> happen to come up with a phylogenetic definition for Thecodontia, the BANDits
> will simply ignore the definition. Instead, they'll simply seize upon the
> fact that Thecodontia has returned as a valid grouping, and use it as extra
> ammo to peddle the same vague, typology-based assertions they always have.
> I'd rather consign Thecodontia to history, and keep it out of temptation's