Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> Coelophysidae
> (Coelophysis bauri + Procompsognathus triassicus)
>
> Procompsognathinae
> (Procompsognathus triassicus <- Coelophysis bauri)
>
> Coelophysinae
> (Coelophysis bauri <- Procompsognathus triassicus)

This suggests that the phylogenetic position of *Procompsognathus* is very 
well known...

> Therizinosauroidea
> (Beipiaosaurus inexpectus + Therizinosaurus cheloniformis)

*Alxasaurus* might have been better, but current usage is closer to 
Sereno's definition.

> Ornithurae
> (Passer domesticus <- Archaeopteryx lithographica)

I think this one should be brought closer to the origin of the "bird 
tail", whatever that is. An apomorphy-based definition may not be 
feasible, but there are several node- and branch-based possibilities.

> Ornithothoraces
> (Sinornis santensis + Passer domesticus)
>
> Enantiornithes
> (Sinornis santensis <- Passer domesticus)
>
> Euornithes
> (Passer domesticus <- Sinornis santensis)

*Enantiornis*...

> Coelophysoidea
> (Coelophysis bauri <- Ceratosaurus nasicornis, Carnotaurus sastrei,
> Passer domesticus)
> The presence of Passer as a specifier is useful, but Carnotaurus seems 
> superfluous, since there has never been a (Ceratosaurus (Passer 
> (Carnotaurus, Coelophysis))) topology suggested.

Better too many external anchors than too few.

> Abelisaurus comahuensis
> should be the internal specifier (Phylocode 11.8),

Yes, but Sereno doesn't like the PhyloCode all that much...

> Tetanurae
> (Passer domesticus <- Ceratosaurus nasicornis, Carnotaurus sastrei)
> The addition of Carnotaurus as an external specifier actually seems 
> counter-productive to me.

Here I agree.

> Spinosauroidea
> (Spinosaurus aegyptiacus + Torvosaurus tanneri, - Allosaurus fragilis, 
> Passer domesticus)
> According to ICZN rules, the superfamily containing Megalosaurus should
> be called Megalosauroidea, as Megalosauridae has priority over
> Spinosauridae.

It's certainly useful if the PhyloCode and the ICZN use the same names for 
the same taxa, but this isn't exactly required...

> Coelurosauria
> (Passer domesticus <- Allosaurus fragilis, Sinraptor dongi,
> Carcharodontosaurus saharicus)
> [...] One thing I object to is the use of Passer as an internal
> specifier for Coelurosauria, as birds were not originally classified as
> coelurosaurs in Huene, 1914 or by anyone until the 1970's at least.
> [...] The best internal specifier for Coelurosauria in my opinion is
> Ornithomimus.  It's always been a coelurosaur,

Not true. I remember the times when Coelurosauria contained only those 
that didn't fit in any of the "new" "infraorders" (Ornithomimosauria, 
Deinonychosauria, Oviraptorosauria).

*Coelurus* might not be that bad after all. Isn't Coelurosauria named 
after it?

(Anyway, I'd personally prefer Coeluria, which doesn't have that stupid 
lizard reference inbuilt and avoids confusion with the old Carnosauria-
Coelurosauria dichotomy of Theropoda. But of course hardly anyone has ever 
used it.)

> Therizinosauria

Why invent that new name? Why not take Segnosauria???

(Would have the added benefit that *Segnosaurus* is quite a bit better 
known than *Therizinosaurus*.)

> Therizinosauridae
> [...] Since the point of Therizinosauridae seems to be to separate more
> derived taxa from Alxasaurus, I would actually recommend
> (Therizinosaurus cheloniformis <- Alxasaurus elesitaiensis).

I agree.

> Confuciusornithidae
> (Confuciusornis sanctus <- Passer domesticus)
> The only previous definition for this family is that of Chiappe et al. 
> (1999), who used a node-base- (Confuciusornis sanctus + Changchengornis 
> hengdaoziensis).  I agree with Sereno that as more members of the 
> confuciusornithid stem are discovered, it would be ideal to be able to
> refer them to the family.

IMHO this depends on how long that stem gets... maybe 
Confuciusornithiformes is preferable.

> Archaeopterygidae
> (Archaeopteryx lithographica <- Passer domesticus)
> This is the first published definition of Archaeopterygidae.  I would 
> recommend a few additional external specifiers- Dromaeosaurus
> albertensis (Paul, 1988; 2002), Troodon formosus and Enantiornis leali
> (Martin, Feduccia, Hou, et al.).

At least!

Without those extra specifiers, it could be called Archaeopterygiformes.

> Ornithomimiformes
> (Ornithomimus edmontonicus <- Passer domesticus)
> This rather blatantly replaces Arctometatarsalia, though the latter has
> never been more explicitly defined than (Ornithomimus <- Neornithes).
> I actually think it's a better name for the clade in question

I agree.

> Oviraptoriformes
> (Oviraptor philoceratops <- Passer domesticus)

Great!

(Though personally I prefer node-based definitions for -formes names -- 
along the lines of Dinosauriformes, Archosauriformes, Lepidosauriformes, 
Mammaliformes...)

> but Enigmosauria is still listed on TaxonSearch-
> I told you people don't like pretending things don't exist

B-)

> Microraptorinae
> (Microraptor zhaoianus <- Velociraptor mongoliensis, Dromaeosaurus 
> albertensis, Unenlagia comahuensis, Passer domesticus)
> Senter et al. (2004) erected Microraptoria,

and that was a good idea. (So is the addition of a bird as an external 
anchor.)

> Sereno (2005) erected Microraptorinae, attributing it to Senter et al.
> (though I don't believe the ICZN allows 'potential' names to be
> attributed in that way)

I'm sure it doesn't.

> and the latter has priority.

Well, nothing has priority unless registered and published on or after 
"January 1, 200n"...

-- 
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* + WLAN-Router ab 0,- Euro*
Bis 31.12.2005 einsteigen! Infos unter: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl