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

Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)




Mike,
I understand what you are trying to do, and certainly commend you on having the foresight to include a Passer exclusion "proviso". And I can understand how burdensome the phrase "oviraptorosaur-therizinosaur clade" is.
But looking at this from the perspective of a hypothetical future-phylocoder, I think there may come a time when there will be regrets and frustrations that a lot of good names were "used up" and ended up on a "self-destruct" trash heap, and it could have been avoided by using non-formal names for a longer period (haste makes waste).
The nice thing about non-formal names is that they are much easier to "recycle" into new meanings (if need be) when new cladistic topologies emerge. That's why I would prefer "enigmosaurs" (which does not indicate holophyly or paraphyly) or "enigmosaur clade" for those convinced of its holophyly. I'm just advising taking it slow and looking at it from a long-term perspective. Or even something like the "O-T clade" would be preferable to a formal clade name in my opinion.
------Cheers, Ken
P.S. I must admit that I like "enigmodracones", but even using it as a common name now could tempt someone to raise it to formal status too soon and another great name might be lost or compromised. You might even consider just informally calling them "enigmodragons". That sounds kind of cool, and might help steer clear of a premature formalized name.
As for the name "Dracones" which Tom Holtz mentioned last month, I would be very hesitant in reviving it (since there is a genus Draco which is a non-archosauromorph) and therefore could possibly even be invalid under phylocode rules now being considered. Something to keep in mind.
********************************************
From: "T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
Reply-To: tmk@dinosauricon.com
To: Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com>
CC: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:19:56 -0400 (EDT)

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>



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