RE: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

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

> >Good point.  So maybe (Sinraptor dongi + Allosaurus fragilis + Passer 
> >domesticus) ?
>
> That seems a nice definition for Tetanurae.

I'd prefer something stem-based...

> Given that a phylogeny is a *product* of character transformations, this 
> approach is incongruous to say the least.  BCF keeps the topology, but 
> re-writes the characters that were used to generate the phylogeny.

This seems to be based on a lack of understanding of how characters are 
used to generate a phylogenetic hypothesis...

> BCF also alters the 'standard' phylogeny at the base of the Dinosauria:
> BCF gives sauropods as basal dinosaurs; lagosuchians as basal theropods;
> and sauropodomorphs closer to ornithischians than to theropods.

This is mainly good old parsimony-with-one-character (in this case the 
number of phalanges in the 5th toe). This character is deemed to be 
irreversible, no matter what the other characters say.

> However, the fact remains that the BCF "phylogeny" is not actually
> generated using cladistic methodology.  The same applies to Martin's
> "Sauriurae" and Gardiner's "Haematothermia" and (going back even
> further) Cuvier's "Pachydermata".

I've read Gardiner (1993). The Haematothermia hypothesis is largely 
cladistic. It's just _bad_ cladistics -- far too few characters, far too 
few (fossil) taxa, questionable assumptions of primary homology.

> So clades can be anchored using nomina dubia?

I can't remember the PhyloCode saying anything against that, but I'll have 
to check. 

> _Troodon_ is not a nomen dubium, but if more troodontid material is
> unearthed that shows more than one troodontid species existed in
> Campanian-Maastrichtian North America, and
> they all had the same dental morphology, then _Troodon_ is toast.

Yep -- but it will still be a troodontid (and probably a quite derived 
one). That should be unambiguous enough for not harming its function as a 
specifier.

> Yes - in the unlikely event that this should happen, it would be better
> to have _Confuciusornis_ in Archaeopterygidae/iformes than have
> _Archaeopteryx_ in Confuciusornithidae/iformes

There will be an extremely easy way to organize such things: priority is 
based on the registration number and nothing else. So just register 
*Archaeopterygiformes* a few seconds earlier.

> Should these topologies arise, I think it would be entirely appropriate
> that deinonychosaurs be put inside the Archaeopterygiformes.

I agree.

> What do "Chuniaoae" and "Chuniaoia" actually mean?

Good question. http://www.zhongwen.com | Search Dictionary | Pronunciation 
only gives "bird" and "urine" as meanings of two different pronunciations 
of "niao", so that should settle it. But at this time of the night I'm not 
going to wade through all the possibilities for "chu".

-- 
Lust, ein paar Euro nebenbei zu verdienen? Ohne Kosten, ohne Risiko!
Satte Provisionen für GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner