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

Re: NMMNH Bulletin 46 (Drepanosaurs) available

Although Senter & Renesto et al. include the same genera in Simiosauria & Drepanosauromorpha, respectively, the definitions of the two groups differ:

Senter (2004) defines Simiosauria as a stem-based taxon: "all taxa more closely related to Drepanosauridae than to Coelurosauravus or Sauria."

Drepanosauromorpha (Renesto et al. 2010) is node-based: "the least inclusive clade containing Hypuronector limnaios Colbert and Olsen, 2001 and Megalancosaurus pronenesis Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1981."

Simiosauria becomes quite a different thing if, as Renesto et al. find, Sauria includes the Drepanosauridae.

Which in some ways is too bad, because they'll always be Monkey- Lizards to me.

-Matt Celeskey.

On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet wrote:

Seems the taxonomic content of Drepanosauromorpha Renesto, Spielmann,
Lucas & Spagnoli is identical to that of Simiosauria Senter, 2004 (I
don't have the paper at my disposal now, though). Would be interesting
to check both definition cause I suspect they may be synonymous (given
the remarks of David on Drepanosaurinae / Megalancosaurinae).

2010/1/25 David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
Megalancosaurinae = Drepanosaurus + Megalancosaurus.

Wrong under ICZN Article 36.1.
http://www.iczn.org/iczn/includes/page.jsp?article=36 When Drepanosauridae was coined, Drepanosaurinae, -ini, -ina, and -oidea were automatically coined with it, so Drepanosaurinae already exists and has priority over Megalancosaurinae. In other words, whichever subfamily of Drepanosauridae that contains *Drepanosaurus* must be called Drepanosaurinae. It does not matter at all whether the name Drepanosaurinae has ever been used in a
Jocelyn Falconnet