[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 23:11:00 +0200
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode mailing list <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Nomina Conversa
> > I haven't read those papers; the *Eudibamus* paper puts Mesosauridae into > > Anapsida (which becomes Parareptilia if you remove turtles [called > > Testudines here]), > > (probably a good idea, since _Chelonia_ is a genus) Really!?! > > so Synapsida > (err, _Sauropsida_) > > and Eureptilia have the same content, although different definitions, > > at present. (err, true :-] ) > Maybe I did see _Eureptilia_ before... anyway, seems like a preferable > name to me. I wouldn't want to have -reptilia again... > > Sauria (another yucky name -- it is neither meant to have its > > traditional paraphyletic meaning "lizards" > > Wasn't "Lacertilia" used for that group? Yes, as a synonym, seemingly based on personal preferences. > > nor to include all taxa that end in *-saurus*, see > > http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/sauropsida.html) > > I would much prefer _Sauria_ to _Reptilia_. Birds are already > coelurosaurians, dinosaurians, and archosaurians; why not saurians as > well? True. This would, however, increase the confusion among German speakers, who often use "Saurier" as an abbreviation for "Dinosaurier" as well as as an artificial group that includes most or everything that contains -saur-, and it would have little to do with the original meaning of the word (Greek sauros = lizard). > > > 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.) > > ??? What's the definition of _Teleostomi_? According to the Dinosauricon :-] , it includes Acanthodii and Osteichthyes as sister taxa... > It seems to me it would make > sense as a stem-based clade, perhaps sister to _Chondrichthyes_. I'm a > little ignorant about that part of the tree, though. So is everyone else. The Nature issue that contains the paper about the feathers of *Sinornithosaurus* has one about a basal sarcopterygian and mentions the general confusion about basal gnathostome phylogeny. > > and Therapsida has a long history of explicitely excluding mammals > > (whereas Dinosauria, Theropoda, Coelurosauria etc. have hardly ever > > explicitely excluded birds), > > What do you mean by "explicitly excluding"? I don't think anyone ever > suggested putting birds in Dinosauria (or Theropoda or Coelurosauria) > until the '70's. But since then many have done so, while mammals have AFAIK not been considered therapsids for so long. I don't know most of the cladistic literature on this, though. > > 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? > > Yes, according to this page: > <http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/terrestrial_v ertebrates.html> Oh! Forgot this. > Laurin M. 1998a. The importance of global parsimony and historical > bias in understanding tetrapod evolution. Part I-systematics, > middle ear evolution, and jaw suspension. Annales des > Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, Paris, 13e Srie 19: > 1-42. I think I'll have to find this paper...