[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosauria: Original Definition VS Clade Conversion (WAS: Re: tiny-armed theropods)
On 22 October 2011 09:57, Jocelyn Falconnet <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Joke apart, Owen having used *Megalosaurus*, *Iguanodon*, and *Hylaeosaurus*
> to define his Dinosauria, it would have been interesting to preserve the use
> of the original specifiers - the underlying issue being the validity of
> these taxa. *Megalosaurus* was indeed considered by some (Molnar et al.,
> 1990; Allain & Chure, 2002) as a dubious taxon until its recent resurrection
> by Benson et al. (2008) - though I know that some paleontologists were not
> pleased with it. And, of course, *Iguanodon* was assigned a new type species
> (*I. bernissartensis*) to stabilize ornithopod taxonomy.
> I read numerous papers dealing with the phylogenetic taxonomy of dinosaurs.
> As far as I know, no one has ever proposed to use Owen's specifiers... Did
> you ever hear of a such attempt ?
The best place for answering such questions is TaxonSearch at
It's not taken very seriously because *every* *single* phylogenetic
definition is replaced by a new one of Sereno 2005, but if you ignore
the Active Definition parts of the pages, the Definitional History
sections are very good. In this case,
shows that Olshevsky (2000:3) suggested a definition of (Megalosaurus
The last draft I saw of the PhyloCode companion volume's Dinosauria
entry was using (Megalosaurus + Iguanodon + Hylaeosaurus).