Re: Polyphyletic Dinosaurs

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Stanley Friesen wrote:

<A Prosauropoda that includes all sauropods is *very*
different in essence from one that includes *no*
sauropods sensu stricto. And such a switch in scope
retroactively changes the apparent meaning of older
articles referring to Prosauropoda (and of the reader
doesn't know about the historical change in
membership, the reader could easily be confused quite
badly).>

  Unless we take "Prosauropoda", change it to
"prosauropods" and redefine it, by etymology I guess,
as "all sauropodomorphs preceeding sauropods", the
original intent, and this would effectively exclude
Plateosauria (a name that has been coined to my
knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) so only ancestors
are defined as "prosauropods." Plateosaurs are all
sauropodomorphs that are not prosauropodan or
sauropodan. Simple. Well, at least to me.

  Another Y300 I didn't think I'd be spending,

===
Jaime A. Headden

"May I lure us, ere the mote ends us?"

Qilong, the we---is temporarily out of service.
Please check back when the phone lines are no
longer busy.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com