Re: Taxon Search

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Jaime Headden wrote-

> <Except that he uses uncertain content as a reason to make some clades
> inactive, like Galton and Upchurch's (2004) Anchisauria.  So it's a
> double-standard.>
>
>   How clear _is_ "Anchisaurus, Ammosaurus, Riojasaurus, Melanorosaurus,
> Camelotia, and Lessemsaurus" ?

If you would have read either Galton and Upchurch (2004) or the relevent 
TaxonBase page, you would see that's not the definition.  The definition is 
"Anchisaurus and Melanorosaurus, their common ancestor, and all its 
descendants," which is perfectly clear.

> Or any clade that uses "Neornithes" as a
> specifier, or refers to "all dinosaurs closer to [name] than to [name]" 
> type
> formulations? Sereno (2005) details how these are ambiguous, uncertain, or
> should be formulated clearly, basing these on specific wordings to erase
> ambiguity. This is likely why it's inactive.

As you can see, this is not the reason.  It's because of "the uncertain 
relationships (and taxonomic status) of several of these taxa, the content 
of such a taxon would remain ambiguous."  But since Anchisaurus and 
Melanorosaurus are the only specifiers, whether Lessemsaurus has uncertain 
relationships, or Ammosaurus is a junior synonym of Anchisaurus shouldn't 
matter.  Sure, Anchisauria is just a subset of Sauropoda in Yates' topology, 
but it's useful in Galton and Upchurch's.

Mickey Mortimer