"carnosaur" classification (was Archaeopteryx Pes)

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Nick,
     I think you bring up a valid point below.  Phylogenetic 
classifications tend to attempt the fine-splitting of classifications long 
before it is possible (much less appropriate) to do so.  Therefore the 
"quagmire" destabilizes the taxonomy and causes unnecessary confusion.
     As for the "carnosaurs" (sensu lato) in particular, I prefer to 
classify them as three families:  Spinosauridae, Torvosauridae (= 
Megalosauridae), and Allosauridae (incl. sinraptors, carcharodontosaurs, and 
even Fukuiraptor, etc.).
     I don't even like the term "carnosaurs" any more, because it means 
different things to different people.  Carnosaurs (sensu lato) include the 
above three families, while carnosaurs (sensu stricto) is pretty much 
equivalent to my Allosauridae (formerly Allosauria/Allosauroidea).  
Taxonomic inflation is destabilizing in both the short term and long term.  
And attaching the name "Carnosauria" to any grouping is ill-advised in my 
opinion (even tyrannosaurs used to be dumped in the carnosaur "trash-bin").
     Within a broad Allosauridae, there are two major subfamilies among 
"advanced" forms---Allosaurinae and Sinraptorinae---and whether a Subfamily 
Carcharodontosaurinae belongs within one or the other (or neither of them) 
is still rather controversial (not to mention the fact that some think 
carcharodontosaurs are not "carnosaurs" at all and belong in Abelisauridae 
instead).
     Anyway, that is how a traditionalist (like me) might try to sort 
through this quagmire.  In short, stop the premature splitting of larger 
families, and avoid using the common name "carnosaur" (or a taxon 
"Carnosauria")---- they are about as useless and confusing as "insectivore" 
and "Insectivora".
                   -----Ken Kinman
P.S.  QUESTION:  By the way, which has priority, Torvosauridae or 
Megalosauridae?   Is it possible that one could have priority by the 
Zoological Code and the other priority by the PhyloCode???
********************************************************
Nick wrote:
>       Which raises a point: all this arguing about taxonomy and what to 
> call this or that seems a little misplaced. Before we can erect a taxonomy, 
> we need a decent idea of how things are related, and we don't have that 
> yet, we've got a systematic quagmire....
>
>       Foundation, then structure. Otherwise, we get situations like a 
> Ceratosauria that uses Coelophysis as a reference taxon, so "Ceratosauria" 
> may exclude Ceratosaurus... it just makes stuff more complicated. More than 
> anything, we need taxonomy to be useful, but if stuff like this happens and 
> names proliferate because we are too eager to rush in and name every 
> concievable node and stem... well, heck if I know a solution to it all.
>
> -N
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com