Re: The Dinosauria 2nd Ed. - Phylogenetic Taxonomy

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> > Megalosaurinae (Megalosaurus bucklandi <- Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis)
> > Eustreptospondylinae (Eustreptospondylus oxoniensis <- Megalosaurus
> > bucklandi)
>
> Bad. Depending on where *Eustreptospondylus* falls, either of these names 
> could include Avetheropoda, and Megalosaurinae could include 
> Megalosauridae.

One way to avoid these potential problems is to have a "trapdoor" inserted 
in the definition, such as changing the definition of Megalosaurinae to "all 
megalosaurids closer to _Megalosaurus bucklandi_ than to _Eustreptospondylus 
oxoniensis_".  Therefore, if _Eustreptospondylus_ proves NOT to be a 
megalosaurid, the definition of Megalosaurinae becomes nonsensical.  This 
prevents the absurd situation of having Megalosaurinae becoming more 
inclusive than Megalosauridae.

> Aesthetically, I'd still prefer to get rid of the old names Carnosauria and 
> Coelurosauria... well.

I think the usage of both names over the past 15 years has made them more 
palatable.

> > Lithostrotia (Malawisaurus + Saltasaurus)
>
> Hey, new name.

This name made an appearance in Wilson and Upchurch (2003), but was not 
defined.

Nick Pharris wrote:

> > Coelophysidae (Coelophysis + Syntarsus) (Holtz, 1994)
>
> So, potentially, Coelophysidae = _Coelophysis_.

Yes, since _Syntarsus rhodesiensis_ appears to be a species of 
_Coelophysis_.

This raises an interesting question: Can we have a Coelophysoidea without a 
Coelophysidae?



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/