Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> > Coelophysidae
> > (Coelophysis bauri + Procompsognathus triassicus)
> >
> > Procompsognathinae
> > (Procompsognathus triassicus <- Coelophysis bauri)
> >
> > Coelophysinae
> > (Coelophysis bauri <- Procompsognathus triassicus)
>
> This suggests that the phylogenetic position of *Procompsognathus* is very
> well known...

Yes, I agree with what you're saying, especially since Allen (2004) found it 
to be non-dinosaurian, whether including the skull or not.  Segisaurus has 
similar problems (Senter and Hutchinson, 2001), though at least it seems 
definitively theropod.  Maybe (Coelophysis bauri <- Liliensternus 
liliensterni) would be better for Coelophysidae?  Then we could just leave 
it internally undivided until there's more of a consensus.

> > Ornithurae
> > (Passer domesticus <- Archaeopteryx lithographica)
>
> I think this one should be brought closer to the origin of the "bird
> tail", whatever that is. An apomorphy-based definition may not be
> feasible, but there are several node- and branch-based possibilities.

Eh, we already have Pygostylia, Avebrevicauda, Euornithes and 
Ornithuromorpha for those.  I prefer the historical precidence of Gauthier's 
definition.

> > Ornithothoraces
> > (Sinornis santensis + Passer domesticus)
> >
> > Enantiornithes
> > (Sinornis santensis <- Passer domesticus)
> >
> > Euornithes
> > (Passer domesticus <- Sinornis santensis)
>
> *Enantiornis*...

Agreed for Enantiornithes.  Ornithothoraces was defined in respect to 
Iberomesornis though, and Euornithes was defined with Sinornis (in this 
version of the name).

> > Spinosauroidea
> > (Spinosaurus aegyptiacus + Torvosaurus tanneri, - Allosaurus fragilis,
> > Passer domesticus)
> > According to ICZN rules, the superfamily containing Megalosaurus should
> > be called Megalosauroidea, as Megalosauridae has priority over
> > Spinosauridae.
>
> It's certainly useful if the PhyloCode and the ICZN use the same names for
> the same taxa, but this isn't exactly required...

It'd be confusing if they didn't.

> *Coelurus* might not be that bad after all. Isn't Coelurosauria named
> after it?

I don't think so.  But if it is, I agree Coelurus should be used.  The 
paper's in German (so I can't read it; though I do have a pdf), but its 
sister group was Pachypodosauria, which wasn't based on a genus.

> (Anyway, I'd personally prefer Coeluria, which doesn't have that stupid
> lizard reference inbuilt and avoids confusion with the old Carnosauria-
> Coelurosauria dichotomy of Theropoda. But of course hardly anyone has ever
> used it.)

And when they did use Coeluria, it wasn't for anything close to the same 
clade.  It only contained coelurids in both Marsh's and Paul's versions.

> > Therizinosauria
>
> Why invent that new name? Why not take Segnosauria???
>
> (Would have the added benefit that *Segnosaurus* is quite a bit better
> known than *Therizinosaurus*.)

People hate Segnosaur- names nowdays, what can I say?  Part is probably the 
elegance of matching it with Therizinosauroidea and Therizinosauridae.  But 
that doesn't stop Oviraptorosauria-Caenagnathoidea, or 
Deinonychosauria-Dromaeosauridae.  Maybe part is embarrassment over the late 
80's - early 90's trend to throw segnosaurs out of Theropoda, while 
therizinosaurs were basically always included.  I'd prefer Segnosauria, but 
everybody else seems to have jumped on Russell and Dong's Therizino train, 
and I don't care enough anymore to rebel.

> > and the latter has priority.
>
> Well, nothing has priority unless registered and published on or after
> "January 1, 200n"...

I meant date priority for the names, which I still like to follow if they've 
been used since the 1800's or so, even though the ICZN doesn't cover 
suprafamilial-level names.

Mickey Mortimer