Re: Tetanurae

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mike Keesey wrote:

> I really don't see why this is a problem. If abelisaurs are tetanurans, 
> then they're tetanurans.

Yes, Mickey M. feels the same way.  True, as a stem- err... branch-based 
clade, Tetanurae is an idea as much as a category.  The fact that you both 
agree makes me re-think this.  But I think Sereno's "stability of content" 
is important here.

> Apart from the problems raised by you and Tim, it's kind of ridiculous to 
> base a clade whose name means "stiff tails" on a manual character! If 
> _Tetanurae_ were to be apomorphy-based at all (which is probably not a 
> great idea), it should be based on a caudal character.

Apomorphy-based definitions for any clade are a bad idea, IMHO.  They're a 
little too close for comfort to those old "key" characters used in 
pre-cladistic days.  But to give credit where credit's due, Gauthier & de 
Queiroz's (2001) apomorphy-based clades are at least named after the same 
characters they denote (Avialae, Aviremigia, etc).

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001