Re: Revised Ornithischian Classification

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Jaime,
    If I thought hypsilophodonts could be divided into two clades (as you 
did), I would see no real need for a paraphyletic family.  But the closer I 
look, I see more and more small clades splitting off sequentially (far more 
than 2).  Therefore, I believe it is strict cladification that is the bad 
idea in this case, because it would require perhaps 10 small families or 
more (there could be one or two Australian clades splitting off separately 
that would require more families).   Since most dinosaurologists continue to 
assign these forms to a Family Hypsilophodontidae, a broad "markered" 
semi-paraphyletic classification makes more sense to me (BTW, I put Drinker 
back in, but is it really all that distinct from Othniela?):

9  Hypsilophodontidae
      1  Plesion "Y." multidens
     2A  Othnielia
      B  Drinker (subgenus of Othnielia?)
     3A  Zephyrosaurus
      B  Orodromeus
      ?  Laeallynasaura
      4  Yandusaurus
      5  Hypsilophodon
      6  Rhabdodon
      7  Plesion "T." dossi
      8  Tenontosaurus
      9  Parksosaurus
      ?  Notohypsilophodon
      ?  Muttaburrasaurus
     10  Gasparinisaura
     11  {{Dryosauridae to
          Hadrosauridae}} (= dryomorphs)
_1_ Dryosauridae
2  Camptosauridae
3  Iguanodontidae
4  Hadrosauridae
********************************************
Jaime Headden wrote:

    9  A  plesion "Y." multidens
>       B  1  Othnielia
>          2  Drinker
>       C  1  Zephyrosaurus
>          2  Orodromeus
>          ?  Laeallynasaura
>       D  Hypsilophodon
>       E  plesion Yandusaurus
>   10  A  1  Parksosaurus
>          2  Gasparinisaura
>       B  1  Rhabdodon
>          2  Tenontosaurus
>       ?  Muttaburrasaurus
>   11  1  Dryosauridae
>       2  Camptosauridae
>       3  Iguanodontidae
>       4  Hadrosauridae



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp