[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Arctometatarsalia and Alvarezsauria
As I have recommended before, I think the taxon Arctometatarsalia
should be abandoned (just as Bullatosauria was). Restricting it just to
ornithomimids (and close relatives) leaves us in the position where calling
something "arctometatarsalian" is extremely ambiguous. Is the person
referring to a member of cladistic Arctometatarsalia or the much wider group
of coelurosaurs that share the "arctometatarsalian" foot (which is now known
to be convergent)?
As for the Alvarezsauria mess, I recommended on February 7th that
mononykiforms be divided into three separate families: Patagonykidae,
Parvicursoridae, and Mononykidae (the latter containing Shuvuuia and
Mononykus). This is clear cut, and if you want to combine Parvicursoridae
and Mononykidae into one family, you will then have to face the muddled
taxonomic history of those forms (which has been periodically debated on DML
for several years). I personally would rather have an oversplit
classification that is clearcut, rather than forcing ourselves into an
unnecessary and endless debate that continually resurfaces.
As for Alvarezsaurus, I support Bonaparte's assignment of it (and it
alone) to Family Alvarezsauridae, at least until more material settles the
debate over its proposed relationship with the mononykiforms. I prefer to
refer to it as Alvarezsaurus (plesion or genus) since the name
Alvarezsauridae has so often been used to include the mononykiforms. After
all, the purpose of nomenclature is clarity of communication.
I am just trying to make the best of a bad situation. Please be
mindful that my "predictions" are an attempt to proactively avoid more such
situations in the future (and I fear the Sinovenator assignment is another
such situation in the making).
------- Ken Kinman
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com