Re: Ornitholestes and Enantiornis

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > >> Enantiornithes WALKER 1981                {*Sinornis* > Neornithes}
> >
> > >Why on Earth did he anchor it on _Sinornis_ and not on the eponymous
> > >_Enantiornis_?
> >
> > _Enantiornis leali_ is a rather poorly known taxon.

And he wanted to have a neat node-stem triplet:

Ornithothoraces {*Sinornis* + Neornithes}
Enantiornithes {*Sinornis* > Neornithes}
Euornithes {*Sinornis* < Neornithes}

> It's not even a _nomen dubium_, though.

Maybe he should have made Enantiornithes {*Sinornis*, *Enantiornis* >
Neornithes} respectively {... *Passer*}, IMHO. (His Neornithes is of course
{*Passer* + *Struthio*}.) The only potential disadvantage of this is that it
_could_ self-destruct (improbable, or at least always thought so at the
moment). Anyway, in reality the definitions I gave are worded as "all avians
closer to...", so we get a problem should any ever fall outside Aves
(respectively the names self-destruct).

> Sereno's
> definition of _Ceratosauria_ (anchored on _Coelophysis_, IIRC),

yep, just checked, same paper as I cited earlier today

> How is _Titanosauridae_ defined?

Has it been defined without being renamed Saltasauridae (never mind
Titanosauria, -iformes... which are anchored on *Saltasaurus*)?