[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Mortimer" <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:13 AM

Allen, 2004. The phylogenetic status of Procompsognathus revisited.
JVP 24(3).

Oh, yeah, an SVP meeting abstract. Proclaims *P.* to be "a non-dinosaurian ornithodiran".

Well, people have been using Liliensternus as a non-coelophysid coelophysoid
for a while. 

Really? Can't remember much of that.

It's pretty universally agreed to be outside Coelophysis +
Megapnosaurus.


Which is just *Coelophysis* for others...

And I don't want to have *Rahonavis* or *Shenzhouraptor* in there either.
What about a node-based one anchored on *Hesperornis* or maybe
*Apsaravis*? Some clade in that region needs a name anyway, and Ornithurae
has been often used for suchlike.

For Hesperornis + Passer, I agree a name would be useful. But why bother
using Ornithurae there instead? It's no more the origin of the 'bird tail'
than (Passer <- Archaeopteryx) is.

It may be the origin of a narrowly defined "bird tail" like defined by Gauthier & friends.

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.


Will this be extremely easy?  Has anyone looked into the issue and decided
on a hierarchy for potentially synonymous clades?


Erm...

It will be easy if all those names are registered by the same author(s). This, in turn, will be relatively easy if my proposal to the PhyloCode mailing list on averting the dangers of the Companion Volume gets through. Otherwise, it'll be a race -- first come, first served.