Alternative dinosaur phylogeny

[Raymond Ancog <rayancog@pacific.net.ph>]

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
>
>For me, Saurischia doesn't exist--or rather, it is a synonym of Dinosauria 
>itself. The characters purportedly uniting sauropods and theropods are
either 
>plesiomorphies (e.g., saurischian pelvis, skeletal pneumatization), 
>convergences (e.g., hyposphene-hypantrum articulations of the vertebrae), 
>poorly defined, or just plain incorrect. I reviewed the characters listed in 
>The Dinosauria long ago and may even have sent my views to this list. I see 
>sauropodomorphs and ornithischians as more closely related to each other
than 
>either group is to theropods. This is also the view of Charig, Cooper, and 
>Bakker (all independent of one another).

Can you give us the nomenclature Charig and Cooper use? Bakker's goes
something like this (very simplified), in his Heresis book:

Dinosauria: lagosuchia, pterosauria, and "traditional dinosaurs"
 |
 +-Theropoda: carnivorous dinosaurs (coelurosaurs, ceratosaurs, herrerasaurs?)
 |
 +-Phytodinosauria: herbivorous dinosaurs
    |
    +-Sauropoda/Sauropodomorpha
    |
    +-Predentata/Ornithischia

His Dinosauria would be Ornithodira to others. He also uses Predentata in
allusion to the predentary bone forming the top of the lower jaw), and
informally calls them the beaked dinosaurs.