Re: Even more last papers for 2005

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

> 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.

It's effectively the same thing, in this case.  As you say, Pseudosuchia was 
erected by Zittel to include three taxa that were superficially 
crocodilian-like, but which were *not* crocodilian.  The name "false 
crocodiles" reflects this, so the etymology is an important factor since it 
captures the original intent.

> 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.

Yes, this is the other major problem.  For Ornithosuchia, Senter has 
effectively followed Gauthier (who probably intended for _Ornithosuchus_ to 
be included in Ornithosuchia, but did not frame a definition to guarantee 
its inclusion).

Cheers

Tim