Re: ENIGMOSAURIA

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- darren.naish@port.ac.uk wrote:
> Re: the status of Enigmosauria Naish et al. 2001 (not Naish 
> & Martill 2001: though this is the correct citation for the 
> entire book), Mike Keesey wrote...
> 
> ------------------------------
> My own stance on this is that there are two types of 
> taxonomic names: 1) Those that have been properly defined 
> in peer-reviewed literature. 2) Those that have not.
> 
> _Theropoda_ and _Tyrannoraptora_ belong to (1). 
> Enigmosauria and Dromavialae belong to (2). 
> ------------------------------
> 
> The work in which Enigmosauria appears was in fact peer-
> reviewed, so this is not quite correct.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the book (or the chapter in question) was
not peer-reviewed (nor that Ji & Ji 2001 was not peer-reviewed). The names fall
under (2) because they were not defined, not because they were published in
non-peer-reviewed literature.


=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com