Re: Diplodocoidea vs. Diplodocimorpha

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:31:37 -0700
> From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
> 
> > You've got me really interested now!  I have both Wilson 2002 and
> > Upchurch 1995 in front of me now, and re-skimming the former
> > doesn't turn up a mention of "Diplodocoidea Upchurch 1995".  What
> > page is it on?
> 
> Page 265-
> "For example, Marsh (1884) is credited with naming the Superfamily
> Diplodocoidea because he coined Diplodocidae, but the superfamily
> was first applied more than a century later by Upchurch (1995)."

Ha!  That'll teach me to skip the appendices!

Thanks.

I guess I will try to get in touch with Jeffrey Wilson directly and
ask him why he didn't like the Hunt et al. definiton.

> Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:48:11 -0400
> From: Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>
> 
> Meanwhile, Harris and Dodson 2004 (the _Suuwassea_ paper) uses
> Diplodocoidea for (Diplodocidae + Dicraeosauridae +
> Rebbachisauridae) (but cites Upchurch 1995 for the name) [...]

... which seems to be emerging as standard practice ...

> [...] names Flagellicaudata for (Diplodocidae + Dicraeosauridae),
> and makes no mention of Diplodocimorpha at all.

D'oh!

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  Ken Thompson's original version of the "lint" program just
         prints a question mark: "The experienced user will usually
         know what's wrong with his program."

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/