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

Re: Hadrosaurus and Claosaurus revised diagnoses

One solution would be to use a non-family name, such as 'Euhadrosauria' for the 
larger clade that includes Hadrosaurus (using it for the less inclusive clade 
may sound silly if 'true-Hadrosaurus' is outside it).

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Fri, 25 February, 2011 11:00:37 AM
Subject: Re: Hadrosaurus and Claosaurus revised diagnoses

The paper explicitly includes Saurolophidae inside Hadrosauridae.  The
former is split into Saurolophinae and Lambeosaurinae, which makes
sense, because _Hadrosaurus_ is found to be outside both.  But having
one 'family' (Saurolophidae) inside another 'family' (Hadrosauridae),
although permitted by PhyloCode, still makes me wince.  Although
Linnaean ranks are (blessedly) on the way out, I'm nevertheless enough
of a traditionalist to believe that a hierarchy should be preserved
for those clades ending in -idae, -inae, and -ini.

BTW, I have the Prieto-Marquez paper (below) if anyone is interested.



On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:59 AM,  <bh480@scn.org> wrote:
> From: Ben Creisler
> bh480@scn.org
> I don't recall seeing this new article mentioned yet, so
> just in case:
> Revised diagnoses of Hadrosaurus foulkii Leidy, 1858 (the
> type genus and species of Hadrosauridae Cope, 1869) and
> Claosaurus agilis Marsh, 1872 (Dinosauria: Ornithopoda)
> from the Late Cretaceous of North America
> Zootaxa 2765: 61–68 (15 Feb. 2011)
> http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/z02765p068f.pdf
> Hadrosauridae constitutes a very diverse clade of
> herbivorous dinosaurs that were extremely abundant during
> the Campanian–Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous) of Europe,
> Asia, both Americas, and probably also Antarctica (Horner
> et al. 2004). The fact that hadrosaurids are one of the
> best-known clades of dinosaurs, represented by arguably
> the richest dinosaurian fossil record, contrasts with the
> scarcity of material and apparently undiagnostic nature
> of their type genus and species
ii is also
> historically significant for being the first skeletal
> remains of a dinosaur described outside Europe (Leidy
> 1858).
> Recently, Prieto-Márquez et al. (2006) redescribed in
> detail the osteology of H. foulkii and revised the
> taxonomy of the genus  Hadrosaurus. These authors
> concluded that  H. foulkii is a nomen dubium because they
> found no autapomorphic or distinguishable characters in
> the type and only known materials of this taxon.
> Here, I show that Hadrosaurus foulkii is actually
> diagnosable based on a combination of plesiomorphic and
> derived appendicular characters. An ancilliary outcome of
> this study is the recognition of a diagnostic combination
> of iliac characters (in the context of the phylogenetic
> framework of Prieto-Márquez 2010) in Claosaurus agilis, a
> poorly known hadrosauroid outgroup to Hadrosauridae (Fig.
> 1) from the middle of the North American continent.