Re: MONONYKUS IS NOT A PARVICURSORIN

[Dinogeorge <Dinogeorge@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-06 03:14:03 EDT, Tetanurae writes:

<< Indeed it would *not* make Mononykinae a synonym of Parvicursorinae.  Karhu
and Rautian specifically EXCLUDE Mononykus from their definition of
Parvicursoridae/inae/ini.  You can make Parvicursorini a taxon within
Mononykinae, but you can't make it equal Mononykinae. >>

The original definition of Karhu & Rautian has been implicitly revised with
the publication of the _Shuvuuia_ paper, resulting in the expansion of the
family Parvicursoridae and subfamily Parvicursorinae to include _Mononykus_.
This kind of thing happens all the time; cladistic/phylogenetic taxa are not
immune to it. If the organization of the taxa in the _Shuvuuia_ paper is taken
at face value, then Mononykinae is a junior synonym of Parvicursorinae, by
priority. You can, however, reorganize the taxa into superfamilies and so
forth to create distinct monogeneric family-level taxa for _Mononykus_ and
_Parvicursor_ (e.g., have both a Parvicursorinae and a Mononykinae). That's
the only way you'll retain the name Mononykinae. But that's not what was done
in the paper, which is what I was reporting.