From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Reply-To: tmk@dinosauricon.com
To: <NJPharris@aol.com>
CC: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 NJPharris@aol.com wrote:
> > 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_.
True, but why anchor it on a poor taxon when you have a choice?
> > 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.
"Enigmoraptores"?
> Aside from which, the members of this clade were not very conventional
> predators.
True, I agree that's a large problem with the name.
> And besides, it's not very original.
And "Enigmosauria" is? :)
> > Furthermore, it is not based on any genus. (And neither is
> > Pete Buchholz's suggestion, "Aenigmosauria".)
>
> That'd be all right.
My only problem with it is that it'd be due for many misspellings, and
could get confused with _Enigmosaurus_ or "Enigmosauria".
(How about a compromise: "Aenigmoraptores"? ;)
Maybe a name based on some character of the group (large hands, beaks,
whatever) would be better. Maybe there's a better suffix than "-sauria" or
"-raptora". ("Enigmodracones"?) One thing's becoming more and more clear
-- it should be named something.
> > 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.
I meant that I think a stem-based group (more inclusive) would be more
useful than a node-based group. (I sometimes like provisos, too.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
BloodySteak <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
personal <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Dinosauricon-related <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
ICQ <77314901>
Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>