Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Yes, I agree with what you're saying, especially since Allen (2004)
> found it to be non-dinosaurian, whether including the skull or not.

Ah! I completely forgot that one! What's the ref?

> Maybe (Coelophysis bauri <- Liliensternus
> liliensterni) would be better for Coelophysidae?

If we don't want an undivided Coelophysoidea (which is de facto what we're 
having), then *Dilophosaurus* might be best...

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

But Gauthier himself does not :-)

And I don't want to have *Rahonavis* or *Shenzhouraptor* in there either. 
What about a node-based one anchored on *Hesperornis* or maybe 
*Apsaravis*? Some clade in that region needs a name anyway, and Ornithurae 
has been often used for suchlike.

> >*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)

Ah, then just send it to me, and I'll translate it over the holidays. :-)

-- 
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner