Re: Avians and their Kin

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > > If the Liaoning "dromaeosaurs" (if such they are)
> >
> > I use this term for {*Dromaeosaurus* > *Archaeopteryx*} as long as no
formal
> > one exists*.
>
> The definition Clade(_Deinonychus_ <-- _Neornithes_), which describes the
> same clade according to all published phylogenies I know of,

Mine is published, in a peer-reviewed journal at that :-P

> has been
> proposed for _Deinonychosauria_. (For PhyloCode, it could be emended to
> Clade(_Deinonychus antirrhopus_ <-- _Passer domesticus_).)

True. But AFAIK a node-based definition by Sereno that includes troodontids
has AFAIK priority. Sereno uses this name a lot in that sense.

> I don't think
> there has ever been a taxon called "Dromaeosauria", so the term
> "dromaeosaur" is technically incorrect -- should use "deinonychosaur"
> (stem-based) or "dromaeosaurid" (node-based) instead.

All true (ignoring the possible confusion about Deinonychosauria). But in
this specific case I was looking for a term that explicitely excludes
*Archaeopteryx*, which belongs to a stem-based Deinonychosauria in my
phylogeny (and a few others that have appeared onlist).
BTW, Sereno has defined *Archaeopteryx* as {*Archaeopteryx lithographica* >
Neornithes}. In the hypotheses just mentioned it is (by content) a synonym
of stem-based Deinonychosauria.