Re: Megalancosaurus, Longisquama & other oddballs

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, David Marjanovic wrote:

> What about the suggestion to name (Rauisuchia + Aetosauria) Pseudosuchia --
> if this is monophyletic?

That has to be monophyletic. I'm guessing you wanted to add a qualifying
clause that excludes _Crocodylia_? Also, _Rauisuchia_ includes
_Crocodylia_! _Rauisuchidae_ is probably what you wanted, although,
per the draft PhyloCode, species or specimens should be used as
specifiers: Clade(_Rauisuchus_ + _Aetosaurus_), provided that _Crocodylus_
does not fall within the clade. (I'm using genera as a shorthand for their
type species.)

I'm still not sure this is such a great application of the name, since
_Aetosaurus_ and _Rauisuchus_ are members of the clade _Suchia_! (In fact,
Benton used the name _Pseudosuchia_ for the same clade, Clade(_Aetosaurus_
+ _Crocodylus_).) Having _Pseudosuchia_ within _Suchia_ doesn't sit too
well with me....

Really, the only group I can think of which deserves the names
"Pseudosuchia" is _Phytosaurus_ _et al._, which has already been given the
similar name _Parasuchia_.

> Predentata is incorrect anyway, I'd say, it should be Praedentata...

Then why isn't it called a "praedentary" bone?

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 Home Page               <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
  The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>