Re: Laelaps and Brontosauria (was Re: Resending)

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Keesey wrote:

> > However, Brontosauria could be retained for the clade that includes
> > Prosauropoda (sensu stricto; =?Plateosauridae) and Sauropoda (or the 
> more
> > inclusive Anchisauria), but not basal sauropodomorphs (like 
> _Saturnalia_,
> > _Thecodontosaurus_, maybe _Efraasia_).  Thus, it would approximate
> > Olshevsky's usage of the term Brontosauria in terms of content.
>
> That is how I used it; but it doesn't approximate Olshevsky's usage,
> because he used the traditional, paraphyletic sense of Prosauropoda,
> so his Brontosauria, as he published it, does include
> _Thecodontosaurus_, etc.

You are correct when you say that Olshevsky put ALL prosauropods and 
sauropods into his Brontosauria.  In fact, the only real reason Olshevsky 
erected "Brontosauria" was because he also thought segnosaurs were 
sauropodomorphs, and he need a name for the non-segnosaur sauropodomorphs.  
Take out the Segnosauria (as he later did), and 
Brontosauria=Sauropodomorpha.

Thus, a Prosauropoda+Sauropoda clade under current topologies would not have 
*exactly* the same content as Brontosauria sensu Olshevsky.  However, I 
tip-toed around this by saying the new Brontosauria would have 
*approximately* the same content as the old.  A few basal sauropodomorphs 
would certainly fall out - but probably no more than two or three 
(_Thecodontosaurus_, etc) , and the vast majority of sauropodomorphs would 
stay inside Brontosauria.  So, this new Brontosauria would retain almost all 
of its original content.  And what's a few genera between friends?  :-)

Cheers

Tim