[Previous by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by date - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Previous by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
[Next by subject - Re: RE: a comment on ancestor]
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:22:59 +0100
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: RE: a comment on ancestor
> Actually, if turtles turn out to be derived diapsids, as some studies suggest, > crown-group _Reptilia_ would be exactly identical (heterodefinitionally > synonymous) to _Sauria_, which might not be such a bad state of affairs, if > _Sauria_ were given priority. And while we are at it, Sauria is itself such a name -- it's the usual name of the paraphyletic lizards. As such, it has even largely replaced Lacertilia. Including snakes and birds in Sauria will lead to quite some confusion among neo-herpetologists. I'd prefer a solution similar to (((Neosauropoda) Eusauropoda) Sauropoda), (((Neotheropoda) "Eutheropoda") Theropoda)... or perhaps the diapsid crown group could be given a name that refers to their ability to hear (which seems to be an autapomorphy of that clade or a slightly bigger one; if so, it's certainly the most conspicuous one). (BTW... I strongly doubt that turtles will turn out to be crown-group diapsids. The hypothesis that they are paedomorphic dwarf pareiasaurs looks quite convincing, and turtles have interesting plesiomorphies -- they produce urea instead of uric acid, the basalmost turtles retained cleithra... -- that would have to be quite amazing reversals if turtles were in or close to the crown group of diapsids.)