Re: Taxon Search

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 12/4/05, Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com> wrote:
>
> However, I have issues with which clades are presented as "active".  It's
> basically the clades Sereno uses.

The ultimate goal of the project is more democratic (or anarchic,
even). You'll be able to make your own databases and decide which taxa
are active and inactive.

> So Tyrannoraptora is active, despite
> having an uncertain content (does it include compsognathids? Ornitholestes?
> arctometatarsalians?)

Does _Maniraptora_ include compsognathids? _Ornitholestes_? Tyrannosauroids?

Show me a clade with perfect stability of content, and I'll show you a
part of the phylogenetic tree that no more than one researcher is
working on. ;)

> But Carnosauria is inactive, because he prefers to use
> Allosauroidea in order to avoid historical baggage and because
> non-allosauroid carnosaurians are disputed. Despite the widespread use of
> Carnosauria, in such influential works as The Dinosauria 2nd ed..

Bad call, there, yes.... We'll have to wait until the contribution
tool becomes available next year.

> Similarly, Eusaurischia is inactive seemingly because Sereno thinks proposed
> non-eusaurischian saurischians are theropods.  But one point of phylogenetic
> nomenclature is that is works with alternative topologies.  Just because one
> person finds a clade to be taxonomically redundant does not mean it should
> be made inactive.  Ornithuromorpha is inactive, while Euornithes is active,
> which I don't think reflects the frequency of their use in publications.

Furthermore, synonymy in *known* content does not mean absolute
synonymy. Even if his topology is right, there must have been *some*
non-eusaurischian saurischians, whether we've found them or not.
--
Mike Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com