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

Re: Two new dinosaurs in JVP: Arcusaurus and Haya

Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:

> Amusingly, Tornier (1913)  originally used Plateosauria as an alternative
>  name for Theropoda, which also contained basal sauropodomorphs at the time.

Some things never change.  Nearly 100 years later, _Eoraptor_ comes up
as either a basal theropod or a basal sauropodomorph, depending on the
analysis.  :-)

Colbert (1964) used Plateosauria for herbivorous prosauropods, like
_Plateosaurus_.  He thought there were carnivorous prosauropods too,
which he named Palaeosauria, and included _Teratosaurus_ (among
others).  As we now know, these "carnivorous prosauropods" were just
sauropodomorph postcranial bones mixed with the teeth of unrelated

>  Also, note Sereno's "2005" definition is unpublished, online only.  While 
> Taxon Search credits all his new definitions to "Sereno, 2005", the paper in 
> question has not appeared.

True.  Although Sauropodiformes has been defined in print, by Martinez
et al. (2011 - the _Eodromaeus_ paper).  A clade composed of all but
the most basal sauropodomorphs (like guaibasaurids) is useful - though
_Mussaurus_ is perhaps not the best choice as a specifier, based as it
is on juvenile material, with adult material not yet discovered (based
on Pol and Powell, 2007, where subadult material is described).

Besides, it can't hurt to define Plateosauria with a negative external
specifier, to keep sauropods out of Plateosauria.   It's not just
historical usage of Plateosauria here, but also nomenclatural
stability.  Otherwise, the content of Plateosauria changes
dramatically depending on the relative position of _Plateosaurus_ and