[Previous by date - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by date - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Previous by subject - Re: Nomina Conversa]
[Next by subject - Re: Nomina Conversa]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:37:43 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Nomina Conversa
> _Sauropsida_ *is* used for the stem group, and _Reptilia_ for the crown
> clade. I've never heard of _Eureptilia_ before ... I thought I made it up!
Michael J. Benton: Vertebrate Palaeontology. Second Edition, Chapman & Hall
1997
has a cladogram on p. 130: (and a similar one on p. 247)
Amniota
|--Synapsida
`--Sauropsida
|--Mesosauridae
`--Eureptilia
|--Anapsida
| `--+--Millerettidae
| `--+--Procolophonidae
| `--+--Pareiasauridae
| `--Testudines
`--+--Captorhinidae
`--+--*Paleothyris*
`--Diapsida
"Cladogram showing the postulated relationships of the major groups of
amniotes, based on Laurin (1991), Lee (1993, 1995), and Laurin and Reisz
(1995)."
I haven't read those papers; the *Eudibamus* paper puts Mesosauridae into
Anapsida (which becomes Parareptilia if you remove turtles [called
Testudines here]), so Synapsida and Eureptilia have the same content,
although different definitions, at present.
Putting turtles out of the position shown above, as suggested by
recent controversial studies, gives strange meanings to a
crown-group-defined Reptilia. This may end up in Reptilia having the same
contents as Sauria (another yucky name -- it is neither meant to have its
traditional paraphyletic meaning "lizards" nor to include all taxa that end
in *-saurus*, see http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/sauropsida.html)
> > > _Osteichthyes_: Why do we need the "-ichthyes" part? Why not call the
> > > clade Ostei and let "Osteichthyes" drop, as so many other paraphyletic
> > > taxa have been dropped?
> >
> > There are 2 junior synonyms, *Eu-* and *Neoteleostomi* (which are
mentioned
> > in The Dinosauricon). These sound better IMHO.
>
> Oh yeah ... I wonder where I got those from ... I think "Ostei" would be
> a much better name, but if these have priority....
I can't recall to have seen them elsewhere... (It is not sure, however, that
Teleostomi is useful. It may include any Gnathostomata.)
> > > Of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere. It's my feeling that such
> > > converted names as _Dinosauria_, _Theropoda_, _Coelurosauria_,
> > > _Synapsida_, and _Therapsida_ probably are a good idea.
> >
> > I agree
>
> Although, as you mentioned, there is the alternative Theropsida for
> _Synapsida_, and there's also Neotheropsida (I think Bakker named it) for
> _Therapsida_. Tough call....
Priority? Tossing a coin? :-)
Theropsida was coined by Huxley in, as Sereno would say, a node-stem triplet
(Amniota = (Theropsida + Sauropsida)), so it makes good sense, and
Therapsida has a long history of explicitely excluding mammals (whereas
Dinosauria, Theropoda, Coelurosauria etc. have hardly ever explicitely
excluded birds), so Neotheropsida is a lot more diplomatic.
BTW, Amphibia as something like (Lissamphibia [the quite old name for the
crown clade] > Amniota), to be replaced by suitable species, is IMHO a good
idea; has this already been proposed?