Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Ken Kinman wrote:

> Mike,
>     I think it is premature to assume that these groups form a true clade,
> much less giving it a formal name or cladistic definition.

The first definition I proposed to this list does not assume that
therizinosaurs belong (or caenagnathids or _Caudipteryx_ or _Microvenator_
or anything beside the type specimen of _Oviraptor philoceratops_, for
that matter). It would be up to the researcher to determine whether
therizinosaurs and other taxa (avimimids, maybe?) belong.

The second definition I proposed is automatically invalidated if birds
(or, at least, _Passer_) do belong, so if it is paraphyletic with respect
to _Passer_, it "self-destructs".

Doesn't seem too much to worry about here, and I think some people are
getting tired of saying "the oviraptorosaur-therizinosaur clade".

(I actually kind of like "Enigmodracones" now... well, whatever.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
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>