Message 2001-06-0085: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs

Thu, 17 May 2001 10:53:23 -0400

[Previous by date - My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs]
[Previous by subject - Re: Multiple definitions? was Re: Stormbergia dangershoeki]
[Next by subject - Re: Nathan Wilson's question]

Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:53:23 -0400
From: Scott Redhead <redheads@EM.AGR.CA>
Subject: Re: My classification of coelurosaurs

It is difficult to take seriously comments like that posted by Ken Kinman, =
who cannot seem to recall who it was that questioned his intermediate =
clades (it was not me). Mr. Kinman also completely misses the point I was =
making about subscribers who are so narrowly focussed that their points of =
view do not apply to a discussion about the generation of a new code.

>From what I can see, Mr. Kinman (please correct me if I am wrong), is =
using this listsever to advertise his classifications. I have no idea what =
his classifications are based upon. I have no idea where his data is =
published (perhaps he can supply a few references?). I can find no recent =
reference cited in Biosis by him. Perhaps it is all in the chemistry =
literature. I confirmed that he was a coeditor of the book on mammals in =
1982. Now he seems to have published a new book, "The Kinman System: =
Toward a Stable Cladisto-Eclectic Classification of Organisms (Living and =
Extinct; 48 Phyla, 269 Classes, 1,719 Orders)". I cannot help but notice =
he named a classification system after himself. Now he wants to post his =
classification here on the PhyloCode listserver. Why should anyone take =
this seriously?

When I visited his web site, <>=
	 I find heated rhetoric. It is embarrassing to read.  After =
reading it I decided to lower my opinion of such comments unless backed up =
by some published facts. Maybe he has good points. But voicing them as he =
does, he is definitely losing credibility in my eyes.

It is difficult to take seriously discussions on a code that is suposed to =
completely change the way the entire world is supposed to refer to living =
individuals  when I read about personal classifications.

My scepticism is becoming cynicism.

Scott R.

>>> <> 05/16 4:20 PM >>>
     I think it was Scott who said he didn't know what I was talking about
when I said intermediate clades don't have to be formally named. =20
     Below is a good example, my preliminary classification of avetheropods=

posted on DML this morning.  Intermediate clades like avetheropods,
coelurosaurs, avialae, etc., are encoded, but not "formally" recognized in =
cladisto-eclectic classifications (The Kinman System, 1994). =20
Dear All,
     I decided to begin seriously constructing a cladisto-eclectic
classification of Order Saurischiformes.  Below is my preliminary
classification of coelurosaurs, plus its immediate allosaurid sister group =
it is really a classification of the avetheropod clade).=20
     Please note that I recognize broader families (as traditionalists =
tend to
do).  Perhaps the tyrannosaur implosion of genera will translate into a =
implosion of family taxa as well (more like mine)?  In any case, comments =
             -----Ken Kinman
 Order Saurischiformes (in part)
      4   Allosauridae (=3D Carnosauria)
     5A   Ornitholestidae (possibly paraphyletic)
      B   Compsognathidae
      6   Tyrannosauridae
      ?   Coeluridae
      7   Ornithomimidae
      8   Therizinosauridae
      9   Caudipter(yg)idae
     _a_  Oviraptoridae
     10A  Alvarezsauridae
      B   Avimimidae
     11   Troodontidae
     12   Dromaeosauridae (=3D Deinonychosauria)
     13   Plesion _Rahonavis_
     14   {{Aves}}
******************************************  NOTES:  For those of you who
recognize a single clade for Therizinosauridae, Caudipteridae, and
Oviraptoridae---- you would simply change the 9 to 8B (and then renumber =
to 9-13).  The capital letters indicate subclades (the main clades are
numbered in the order they split off).   The coding symbol _a_ shows that
Oviraptoridae is an exgroup from Caudipteridae.  You could combine them =
an expanded holophyletic Oviraptoridae, but I wouldn't recommend this =
it could become doubly paraphyletic if the cladograms change significantly)=
Also note that I only put in one plesion, but others may be added when the
classification is completed.  And the {{Aves}} marker shows the cladistic
placement of the exgroup Class Aves.  Sister group "nesting" is not =
as in traditional eclectic classifications. =20

Get free email and a permanent address at


Feedback to <> is welcome!