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

Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?

> In what sense is the clade Theropoda "comparable" with the clade
> Apatosaurinae

...I was probably a bit confused when I wrote that. Will have to look at it again (can't now -- too tired).

> This is a complete non-sequitur.  Formally defining a paraphyletic
> Prosauropoda would not in any sense "get in the way of" the clades
> Sauropodomorpha and Sauropoda.

 FWIW, it would get in the way of Sauropodiformes, at least in a
 ranked system:

Yes, and Anchisauria (assuming that name won't just be dropped) and perhaps 2 or 3 others.

 However, nobody has really formalized such a system for grades. If
 you're serious about it, why not follow in the footsteps of
 phylogenetic nomenclature?

For the record, the 3 points I suggested were meant seriously, too.

 I still think, though, that formal names for grades would have to
 follow some other kind of orthographic practice. (Asterisks won't
 work, for reasons David Marjanovic listed.) Perhaps lower-case? That
 way, when you discuss prosauropoda and Sauropoda, it's apparent that
 they are different types of entity.

Italics and lowercase...? Could work, I suppose.

 Or, Paul used hyphenated prefixes as shorthand, e.g., "dino-" for
 "non-avialan". This is somewhat similar to the practice of using
 "stem-" for stem groups (a specific type of grade). Currently the
 best way to refer to most paraphyletic groups is by formulaic phrases
 like "non-colobine primate"*, "non-apo-testudine apo-tetrapod"**,
 etc. So one solution could be to find ways of abbreviating those