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

Re: Huge Theropod Database Update



>> 2010/5/19 David Howlett <gothmog_dave@hotmail.co.uk>:
>> Good work :) although I would question your placement of
>> Megaraptora within Coelurosauria when as I recall the family
>> is accepted to be within the Carcharodontosauridae - in fact
>> one member of the family, Neovenator, is still placed here
>> by you.

There is a big difference between "being classified" and "being
found". Mickey did not *classify* Megaraptora (which is not a family,
by the way) as being a group of coelurosaurs. He *found* the clade to
be nested within Coelurosauria. You, of course, can question it but
you will have to run an analysis to do so;o) Also, you're not right
that their position within Carcharodontosauria (as Benson et al.
[2009] named the biggest clade containing
_C. saharicus_ and _N. salerii_ but not _A. fragilis_ or _S. dongi) is
accepted as no-one has tested Benson et al.'s (2009) phylogenetic
analysis yet. And even though there was a paper testing the
hypothesis, the word "accepted" would still be inappropriate. New
phylogenetic analyses provide new information (new characters,
additional taxa, different settings) but it doesn't mean that the
results represent an unchangeable issue.

>> I'm also unsure why you have removed a number
>> of taxa (including Eotyrannus and the Proceratosauridae)
>> from the Tyrannosauroidia when as far as I am aware, they are
>> firmly placed within the group.

In fact, nothing is placed *firmly* in paleontology:o) But I agree
that Mickey should publish it;o) There is a lot of things that should
be published...

Best,
-- 
Daniel Madzia
web: www.wildprehistory.org
mail: daniel.madzia@gmail.com
skype: danielmadzia