[Previous by date - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by date - RE: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Previous by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
[Next by subject - Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:54:27 -0700
From: Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting
How inefficient for those people subscribed to both lists. :-) Jaime Headden wrote- > Thus, in my opinion, *Crocodilus niloticus* should be the anchor, as the > type species of *Crocodilus* and the type "genus" of the including clades > Crocodylidae, Crocodyloidea, Crocodylomorpha, Crocodyliformes, etc. Hell, > use "Crocodilida." I would agree with you here. > << Archosauromorpha von Huene 1946 = Node (Protorosaurus speneri + > Rhynchosaurus articeps + Caiman crocodilus).>> > > I wonder if we should be using *Archosaurus rossicus*? I know the name > was coined post-Archosauria. Gauthier/deQuieroz/etal., guys should note > the recommendation that the specifier for a clade, if named AFTER a taxon, > should include that taxon. *Rhynchosaurus* should not be used, rather > *Sphenodon,* since Rhynchocephalia was named to include IT, and it is not > eponymous to *Rhynchosaurus.* That name should be used as the first > internal anchor to Rhynchosauria, though, a subclade of Rhynchocephalia. Rhynchocephalia (lepidosauromorphs) is not closely related to Rhynchosauria (archosauromorphs). I know this has confused me often enough. > <<And isn't the type species of Stegosaurus S. armatus? Why does he use > S. stenops? Wagner knows to use S. armatus.>> > > Well, NO one should be using *S. armatus* since right now its mostly > inside a mudstone block and half-prepared and has NEVER been described in > detail or in use of comparative study. I would prefer resetting the type > to *S. stenops,* but that may not be wise. It's still unambiguously stegosaurian. > <<Interestingly, Neornithischia seems to be the marginocephalian stem- > Neornithischia: Clade (Triceratops horridus not Ankylosaurus magniventris, > Stegosaurus stenops and Parasaurolophus walkeri)>> > > I know Pete Buchholz doesn't like his paper and how it was published, > but his "Chasmatopia" has been defined as the most inclusive stem for this > clade. Looks like a typo. Neornithischia is also being used despite > earlier use of Cerapoda [more elegant name, even] for the same clade > Sereno originally used it for. I say fight for Cerapoda. Great how Sereno names Cerapoda, then starts using Neornithischa instead, isn't it? I agree though, fight for Cerapoda. > <<And Sereno's always right, of course, so let's define Heterodontosaurus > to be an ornithopod! > Ornithopoda: Clade (Heterodontosaurus tucki and Parasaurolophus > walkeri)>> > > Ick. BIG ick. ICK. There.... > > If *H. tucki* is closer to marginocephalians than ornithopods, then > Ornithopoda becomes a senior heterodefinitional synonym (as currently > recognized) for both Cerapoda and Neornithischia. Double ick ... ICK ICK. Well, Neornithischia can't include Parasaurolophus walkeri. So if Heterodontosaurus is closer to Triceratops than to Parasaurolophus, it would be- Genasauria |--Thyreophora | `--Ankylosaurus `--Ornithopoda (=Cerapoda) |--Euornithopoda | `--Parasaurolophus `--Neornithischia |--Heterodontosaurus `--Triceratops Mickey Mortimer