[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

camarasaurids; and more clarifications



Regarding camarasaurids, my more traditional classification of dinosaurs has Family Camarasauridae as sister group to (Brachiosauridae + Titanosauridae). But be aware that my Titanosauridae (sensu lato) is equivalent to "Titanosauria" which has been cladistically chopped up into 3 (or more?) separate families (which I would probably recognize as subfamilies if I formally recognized subfamilies). When genera are overly chopped up, it can quickly inflate cladistic hierarchies at higher levels (and so maybe placing Maiasaura in Brachylophosaurus, and other "lumpings" should be seriously considered).
I should mention that the Kinman System does not *forbid* the use of formal intermediate ranks, but tries to strongly discourage it (unlike strict cladists who do *forbid* the recognition of *ANY* formal paraphyletic taxa). In any case, I think it is silly to give placozoans their own subkingdom----- but given their apparent uniqueness and deep placement in the Metazoan tree, a separate Phylum Placozoa seems justified (more so than Mesozoa, which are apparently secondarily-simplified bilaterians, and besides mesozoans may be polyphyletic if two or more such groups arose independently):
KINGDOM METAZOA
1 Porifera
2 Placozoa
3A Cnidaria
B Petalonamata (extinct phylum)
4 Ctenophora
..... and so on.


And rather than name a new formal clade "Epitheliozoa", why not just call them non-Poriferan metazoans (or epitheliozoans). And with reference to the above coded classification in particular, you can refer to it as clade Metazoa 2+ (epitheliozoans). I'm not against giving names to such clades, but let's keep it informal, and save the formal names for the most-strongly supported clades. Too tired to clarify any further tonight.
-----Ken Kinman


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