RE: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> Finally, Gauthier et al. add Compsognathus to the definition of 
> Archosauria-
> Archosauria Cope 1869 = Crown (Caiman crocodilus + Compsognathus longipes +
> Vultur gryphus).
> Just why are dinosaurs constrained as archosaurs?  And why not use
> Megalosaurus bucklandii instead?

_Megalosaurus bucklandii_ might be a nomen dubium.  Rauhut seems to think 
so.  It's probably a bad idea using nomina dubia as specifiers, so I can see 
why _M. bucklandii_ might have been shoved aside.

> I'll be using Wagner's definition- Ornithopoda: Clade (I. bernissartensis 
> not A. magniventris, S. armatus, or C. montanus)

... _Ceratops montanus_ is probably a nomen dubium.

> More apomorphy-based definitions, this time from Padian-
> Pterosauria (Pterosauromorpha with fourth metacarpal and digit 
> hypertrophied
> to support wing membrane synapomorphic with Pterodactylus antiquus)

What exactly is "Pterosauromorpha"?

I agree with you reservations regarding apomorphy-based definitions.  I am 
especially worried about definitions that incorporate a specific behavior - 
such as powered flight.  This could be contentious for the definition of 
Avialae.  Does the "phugoid gliding" posited by Chatterjee and Templin for 
_Archaeopteryx_ qualify as "powered flight?  And already some folks are 
arguing that _Microraptor_ could probably fly as well as (or as badly as) 
_Archaeopteryx_....



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963