Re: Maniraptoriformes

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/11/00 9:37:08 PM EST, tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:
> 
> << Why, if a) the current usage of Coelurosauria is widely understood, and b)
>  Coelurosauria was phylogenetically defined earlier (Coeluria has never
>  been phylogenetically defined), and c) Coeluria originally only included
>  _Coelurus_, even though another (non-avian) coelurosaur (_Compsognathus_)
>  was well-known at the time. >>
> 
> For one thing, the name Coelurosauria is not based on a generic name, but 
> Coeluria is.

I don't understand why this is important.

> For another, it's shorter and more compact, easier to pronounce 
> and to write.

True, but hardly a valid reason to oust a well-established taxon name.

> It remains a mystery to me why Huene would bother to create a 
> name such as Coelurosauria when the name Coeluria for the same group was 
> already available.

Two reasons I can think of:

- To complement the simultaneously-created Carnosauria. (Not a tremendous
reason, but ...)

- Because it wasn't the same group. If Marsh's Coeluria included only
_Coelurus_, then he excluded _Compsognathus_, which had been described 20
years before _Coelurus_. Yet _Compsognathus_ is part of Coelurosauria.

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. Michael Keesey.........<tmk@dinosauricon.com>.........<keesey@bigfoot.com>
AIM <Ric Blayze>..............ICQ <77314901>...........Yahoo!M <Mighty Odinn>
Home Page (includes The Dinosauricon)........<http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>