[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
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.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
Megalancosaurinae = Drepanosaurus + Megalancosaurus.
Wrong under ICZN Article 36.1.
was coined, Drepanosaurinae, -ini, -ina, and -oidea were
coined with it, so Drepanosaurinae already exists and has priority
Megalancosaurinae. In other words, whichever subfamily of
that contains *Drepanosaurus* must be called Drepanosaurinae. It
matter at all whether the name Drepanosaurinae has ever been used