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

Re: Glishades ericksoni, a new hadrosauroid from Montana



Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <tholtz@umd.edu> wrote:

> This is basically the situation that Prieto-Marquez
> advocates: Hadrosauridae = Hadrosaurus + Saurolophus + Lambeosaurus;
> Saurolophinae = Saurolophus > Lambeosaurus; and Lambeosaurinae =
> Lambeosaurus > Saurolophus. In his phylogeny, Hadrosaurus is a 
> hadrosaurid but neither a saurolophine nor a lambeosaurine.


This is fine.  Except that Prieto-Marquez also throws in clade Saurolophidae, 
inside Hadrosauridae.  I don't quite see the point of Saurolophidae - 
especially when Saurolophidae is a clade inside Hadrosauridae.  I agree with 
Daniel that this might cause a nomenclatural mess, for the exact reasons he 
gives.  




Cheers

Tim