Re: Taxonomy (was Re: Fixing dinosaurian carnivour question)

["T. Mike Keesey" <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>]

On Sun, 6 Jun 1999 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/5/99 9:36:44 PM EST, tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu writes:
> 
> << There go Genasauria, Thyreophora, Cerapoda, and Marginocephalia >>
> 
> One should still use the names when necessary, but it's pointless to bother 
> giving them taxonomic ranks.

And why is it not pointless to bother giving any taxon a rank?

> Besides, I think some of these taxa may be 
> doubtfully valid (e.g., Thyreophora), for what it's worth.

Thyreophora will always be valid, whether (as in your phylogeny) it
includes stegosaurs or not. Of course, under your phylogeny, I suppose it
would be a junior synonym of Ankylosauria (which would expand to include
_Scutellosaurus_ [right?] and _Scelidosaurus_).

--T. Mike Keesey                                    <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>
WORLDS                                  <http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1>
THE DINOSAURICON                               <http://dinosaur.umbc.edu>