Re: Dino Notes

[Stang1996@aol.com]

Stang1996@aol.com
<<But then again, if you agree that Saurischia is not an exclusively
monophyletic group and that Dinosauria should really consist of 
Theropoda + Phytodinosauria as I do; then having armor as a 
primitive feature of the Phytodinosauria takes away the need for an 
armor butt-ed dinosaur ancestor (though I think that the first 
dinosaurs were armor butt-ed).>>

Ay!  Don't you hate it when you get off-line and turn the computer off 
and realise that your last post made absolutely no sense at all?

I meant to say that in my opinion, Saurischia is a parataxonomic 
name equal to Dinosauria - Ornithischia.  I _really_ dislike 
parataxonomic names.  I have a feeling that Protoceratopidae as 
most people see it (including Leptoceratops and Protoceratops) is a 
parataxonomic name equal to Neoceratopia - "Ceratopidae;" and 
should be split into the Leptoceratopidae and Protoceratopidae.  
Also, in my opinion, I think that Ceratopidae should be broken into 
the families Chasmosauridae, Centrosauridae, and Triceratopidae.  I 
hope this clears things up.

Peter "There is no 's' in Ceratopian or any derivative thereof"      
    Buchholz
Stang1996@aol.com

Why is murder now legal in the State of California?