Re: Even more last papers for 2005

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> Senter, P. (2005).  Phylogenetic taxonomy and the names of the major 
> archosaurian (Reptilia) clades .  PaleoBios 25: 1-7.
>
> Abstract: "Much disagreement exists as to what names to apply to the major 
> clades of the reptilian taxon Archosauria.  Even among practitioners of 
> phylogenetic taxonomy, there has been a tendency to apply the principles of 
> phylogenetic taxonomy to the naming of some archosaurian clades while 
> resisting the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy for other clades.  Here, 
> the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy are applied to the major clades of 
> Archosauria, and the correct names for these clades within the paradigm of 
> phylogenetic taxonomy are delineated.  Within this paradigm, the names of 
> the major archosaurian clades are as follows.  Archosauria: the most 
> exclusive clade containing Crocodylia and Aves.  Archosauriformes: the most 
> exclusive clade containing _Proterosuchus_ and Archosauria.  Pseudosuchia: 
> the most inclusive clade within Archosauria that includes Crocodylia but 
> not Aves.  Crurotarsi: the most exclusive clade containing Parasuchia, 
> Ornithosuchidae, _Prestosuchus_, and Suchia.  Ornithosuchia: the most 
> inclusive clade within Archosauria that includes Aves but not Crocodylia.  
> Ornithodira: the most exclusive clade containing Pterosauria, 
> _Scleromochlus_ and Dinosauromorpha.  Avialae: the most inclusive clade 
> containing ornithuran birds but not deinonychosaurian theropods.  Aves: the 
> most exclusive clade containing _Archaeopteryx_ and extant birds.  
> Neornithes: the most exclusive and extant birds. [sic]"
>
> I have to say I'm a little underwhelmed by some of these definitions.  I 
> especially hate the definition of Pseudosuchia.  I think Sereno is dead 
> right when he threw Pseudosuchia on the dung heap.  Worst of all, 
> Pseudosuchia is defined by Senter to include crocodylians.  So, let me get 
> this straight... Pseudosuchia, which means "false crocodiles", now includes 
> crocodiles.  Terrific.

I must agree regarding the definitions. However, I don't think etymology 
should matter when it comes to Pseudosuchia.  The more important factor is 
that Pseudosuchia didn't include crocodilians when it was originally named - 
it included two aetosaurs and Dyoplax.  What's more disturbing is that 
Senter defines Ornithosuchia in a way which probably excludes Ornithosuchus, 
which has been noted as a flaw in this definition for several years.  None 
of the definitions are new, and if the abstract is any clue, they don't use 
species level OTU's.  Sigh.

Mickey Mortimer