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

RE: Glishades ericksoni, a new hadrosauroid from Montana

Daniel Madzia <daniel.madzia@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can understand that the position of H. foulkii may require
> some nomenclatural acts (it was found outside of Lambeosaurinae
> + "Hadrosaurinae", so a new potentially self-destructive
> node-based name [i.e., a name that would be used only if H. foulkii is
> found outside the "Saurolophus osborni + Lambeosaurus lambei" clade] can
> be introduced) but is it really necessary to introduce a new
> name with "-idae" within another "-idae" (there is Weishampel et
> al.'s [1993) Euhadrosauria; see also Horner et al's [2004] paper in the
> second edition of The Dinosauria)?

Saurolophidae was also used as a clade inside Hadrosauridae in a previous paper 
(Prieto-Marquez & Wagner, 2009).  I thought it was odd here too.

As Tom says, Euhadrosauria is available for the more inclusive clade (called 
Hadrosauridae by Prieto-Marquez).  However, there is no reason why a clade that 
is defined to include _Hadrosaurus_ could not simply be called 'Hadrosauria'.  
In other words, Hadrosauridae would be re-named  Hadrosauria, which would 
inclde Saurolophidae.

Interestingly, Prieto-Marquez (2010) recovers _Lambeosaurus laticaudus_ as the 
sister taxon to _Hypacrosaurus_; so the new combination _Hypacrosaurus 
laticaudus_ may be in order for the Mexican hadrosaur.