[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
...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
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
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