Re: Taxonomy and naming issues

[Thomas_R_HOLTZ@umail.umd.edu (th81)]

Jonathan Wagner wrote:

>Tim Williams writes (how *do* you write upside-down? ;) ):
>
>>What do you define as an "avetheropod" - is it equivalent to Paul
>>Sereno's Neotetanurae (Allosauroidea+Coelurosauria)?
>
>        If I recall correctly from Mayr's textbook on taxonomy,
>suprafamilial taxa do not have "priority" in the traditional sense.

Not as in the ICZN rules, no.  However, as a follower of the de
Querioz-Gauthier school of phylogenetic taxonomy, I recognize another
principle of priority: two taxa are objective synonyms if they have
exactly the same phylogenetic definition (e.g., Gauthier's 1986
Tetanurae and Novas' 1990 Avipoda: birds and all theropods closer to
birds than to Ceratosaurus).  Two taxa are subjective synonyms if they
conscribe exactly the same clade, but use one or two different taxa in
their defintion.

>        I hear (from Nick Pharris) that Tom Holtz has resurrected the
>Carnosauria as Allosauroidea + Basal allosaurs.  Any comment (TRH?).
>Of course, the problem I see ebing that no one has proven that there
>ARE basal Carnosaurs outside of Sereno's Allosauroidea (Piatnitz,
>IMHO, is a Megalosaur, Torvosaur, or it's own thang).

See a previous (2 minutes ago posting).

And, Allosauroidea is a Currie and Zhao name.

>BTW: Sinraptor *is* related to Megalosaurus, probably about as closely
>as Tyrannosaurus is to Gallimimus (of course, that's very subjective).

No, objectively, Sinraptor is more closely related (i.e., shares a more
recent common ancestor) with Tyrannosaurus and Gallimimus and Trochilis
(hmmmmmmmmmmmm) than it is to Megalosaurus. :-)

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist     Webpage: http://www.geol.umd.edu
Dept. of Geology              Email:th81@umail.umd.edu
University of Maryland        Phone:301-405-4084
College Park, MD  20742       Fax:  301-314-9661

"There are some who call me...  Tim."