Gesendet: Montag, 17. August 2020 um 07:13 Uhr
Von: "Tim Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
[...] The name Anthracosauroideae was
originally erected by Watson (1929), and revived by Smithson (1985) as
a suborder of Anthracosauria (with Seymouriamorpha as the other
Ah... yes. I got that wrong: Anthracosauria was the cover term that included the seymouriamorphs, Anthracosauroideae was just the real anthracosaurs (Embolomeri and Eoherpeton). The ending reminds me of the tradition of using -oidei (masculine, suddenly) for fish suborders and occasionally salamander suborders.
Meanwhile, after Anthracosauria lay unused for decades, Anthracosauria has been defined as everything closer to Anthracosaurus
than to Eryops
or the extant frog Ascaphus
That would seem to replace Smithson's (1985) use of Anthracosauroideae; However, it does not include Eldeceeon
according to the phylogenetic analyses in the new paper.