RE: Tetanurae

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.  wrote:

> There is only the most minor "stability of content" issue here (i.e., a 
> group barely known at the time Tetanurae was coined).

True.  _Abelisaurus_ and _Carnotaurus_ were both described in 1985, a year 
before Gauthier coined Tetanurae.  The other abelisaurids known at the time 
were all poorly known and misclassified: _Indosuchus_ & _Indosaurus_ 
(carnosaurs), _Majungatholus_ (pachycephalosaur!), and so on.  Since c.1990, 
abelisaurids have almost always been recognized as ceratosaurs (or 
ceratosauroids), and never as tetanurans.  Ditto for noasaurids.  I know 
none of this is news to anyone, least of all Tom; but I think the above trip 
down memory lane is an argument in favor of "stability of content".

I'm guessing this will all be moot, given that the support for a 
_Ceratosaurus_+Abelisauroidea clade is robust.

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Stay up-to-date with your friends through the Windows Live Spaces friends 
list. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mk