Re: First International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meeting

[Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> 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.

But why does it matter as long as they are definitely part of the defined
clade?  Megalosaurus is definitely theropod, even if you can't find
apomorphies in the holotype.  And Ceratops is definitely ceratopsian.

> >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"?

Pterosauromorpha (Archosauria closer to Pterodactylus antiquus than to
Vultur gryphus)
Hey, look at that.  Assumed to be archosaurs.  Is it so hard to make good
definitions?, sheesh...

> 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_....

And why the emphasis on feather evolution?  Avefilopluma, Avepluma,
Averemigia, Avepinna, Aveplumosa...  These things aren't preserved often,
people!
I could make a more utilitarian nomenclature based on anterior trochanter
morphology...
Alitrochanterica- (taxa with wing-like anterior trochanter homologous with
Allosaurus fragilis)
Altitrochanterica- (taxa with anterior trochanter that extends proximally to
be subequal in height to the greater trochanter homologous with Deinonychus
antirrhopus)
Subankylotrochanterica- (taxa with at least partial fusion of the anterior
trochanter and greater trochanter homologous with Deinonychus antirrhopus)
Ankylotrochanterica- (taxa with a trochanteric crest homologous with Vultur
gryphus)
And you could actually assign  >50% of Mesozoic taxa to these clades, as
opposed to the <1% for feather-based clades.

I should join the Phylocode Mailing List just to complain.

Mickey Mortimer