Re: Phylogenies, science, tea-time and more...

[Roberto Takata <rmtakata@gmail.com>]

2005/8/26, T. Michael Keesey <keesey@gmail.com>:
> "The combination of such characters ... will, it is presumed, be
> deemed sufficient ground for establishing a distinct tribe, or
> suborder, of Saurian reptiles, for which I would propose the name of
> Dinosauria." (Owen, 1842)
> 
> If course, I'm not exactly sure what comprised _Sauria_ in Owen's
> mind; it's been everything from a synonym of Lacertilia to a synonym
> of crown clade _Reptilia_.

In Owen's time, Sauria comprises from lizards to crocodiles. A
definition restored in modern times: _Crocodylus niloticus_, _Lacerta
agilis_, their most recent common ancestor, and all of its descendants
- but know it includes snakes too.

> > Suppose that we abandon the term Dinosauria. How would we call the
> > group formed by the _Iguanodon bernissartensis_, _Megalosaurus bucklandi_, 
> > their 
> > most recent common ancestor and all of its descendants?
> 
> Why does everyone leave out poor old _Hylaeosaurus armatus_? (I guess
> it *is* very, very likely redundant and not as well known as
> _Iguanodon bernissartensis_, but still ... it *is* one of the original
> three! And second listed, to boot....)

Yes, since _Hylaeosaurus_ is redundant and _Iguanodon_ is better know...

(There are other Dinosauria definitions: e.g. _Triceratops horridus_,
_Passer domesticus_, their most recent common ancestor and all of its
descendants.)