Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)

[NJPharris@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/12/01 7:04:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tmk@dinosauricon.com writes:

> The name Enigmosauria, although not bad etymologically (if I do say so
>  myself), is actually probably not a good idea, since it would have to be
>  anchored on _Enigmosaurus_, which is not the best-known therizinosaur. 

I don't think that matters too much, since the chance is vanishingly small 
that _Enigmosaurus_ is not closely related to _Segnosaurus_.


>  I
>  think it would be a better idea to use a name like "Enigmoraptora"

(with apologies to Mike)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Please don't base any more names off "Maniraptora".  It is not a well-formed 
name, and it bugs the heck outta me.  Aside from which, the members of this 
clade were not very conventional predators.  And besides, it's not very 
original.


>  Furthermore, it is not based on any genus. (And neither is
>  Pete Buchholz's suggestion, "Aenigmosauria".) 

That'd be all right.


>  A stem-based definition,
>  say, Clade(_Oviraptor_ <-- _Passer_, _Ornithomimus_, _Troodon_), could
>  work, or possibly a node-based definition like Clade(_Oviraptor_ +
>  _Alxasaurus_), with the proviso that _Passer_ is excluded. (The former is
>  probably more useful, though.)

I don't know.  I like provisos.

--Nick P.