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

RE: Stegosaur volume of Swiss Journal of Geosciences




--- On Wed, 15/9/10, Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> 
> But not if armatus is definitely within what we want to
> call Stegosauridae.  Sure armatus may be sister to stenops,
> or sister to latidens, because it could be synonymous with
> either.  But as long as it's definitely closer to stenops
> than to Huayangosaurus, it's _just as good_ of an internal
> specifier as stenops is.

Okay, lets assume for now the material of S. armatus can be distinguished from 
Huayangosaurus, thus allowing stegosaurs to be placed in either Stegosauridae 
or not with S. armatus and H. taibaii being internal and external specifiers 
respectively:
What if the issue is that the S. armatus material cannot be discriminated from 
that of Hesperosaurus, Dacentrurus, Loricatosaurus, Miragaia, Tuojiangosaurus, 
Wuerhosaurus etc? In this case, while the clade 'Stegosauridae' may continue to 
be upheld under your proposal, the clades Stegosaurinae, Dacentrurinae, and all 
the above genera would not if S. armatus was an internal specifier. Would all 
these taxa then be squeezed into 'Stegosaurus'?