RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Before I post on my analysis vs. Holtz's, there are a few things to cover...

Tim Williams wrote-

> > Plus, there are characters agreeing with my topology (e.g. coracoid bent 
> > at level of tubercle in Patagonykus, but not Alvarezsaurus or Mononykus), 
> > and Patagonykus lived earlier than Alvarezsaurus and is the largest 
> > alvarezsaurid, so some data make more sense that way.
>
> I was going to jump in and say "But what about _Rapator_!!??".

Quite true.  I merely meant out of the alvarezsaurids used in phylogenetic 
analyses so far, Patagonykus is the oldest and largest.

Jaime brought up a couple issues again-

Regarding Enigmosauria, we've been over this all before.  It's not a 
family-level name, so the ICZN doesn't cover it.  Phylocode doesn't go into 
effect until 1-1-200n.  Thus, as with Coelurosauria or Deinocheirosauria or 
any other supra-family-level taxon, it CAN'T be official.  The only 
difference is that we know it was supposed to be edited out of the paper, 
but it wasn't.  Oops.  The name's published, regardless of intentions.  
Myself, I view taxonomy based on what's published, not what's intended.  
That's how the ICZN works too - you have to petition to change something if 
you didn't publish what you intended to.  Richardoestesia was supposed to be 
Ricardoestesia?  Too bad, Richardoestesia was what got published (except for 
one figure caption).  You don't want to use Enigmosauria?  Fine with me.  
But get off my case, because I'm not disobeying any rules.

Regarding "Alashansaurus", it's been published in Glut (2003).  The latter 
isn't available for taxonomic purposes, as it includes a disclaimer, so it's 
still a nomen nudum.  Much as with Enigmosauria, I view taxonomy based on 
what's published.  In this case, Glut even intended to publish it, as he 
notes it's from a thesis.  Is it regrettable that he published it before 
Chure?  Perhaps, though being a published nomen nudum certainly didn't hurt 
Chaoyangsaurus (and that was for over fifteen years!).  But what's done is 
done, and I'm not one to let (even unfortunate) taxonomy slip under the rug 
as if it has never existed.

Mickey Mortimer