Re: preliminary ornithischian classification

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

>      WOW Alessandro, you convinced me!!!

And me :-)

>       The only really "BIG" question in my mind now is whether or not
> Ankylosauridae and Stegosauridae (both sensu lato here) are really sister
> groups or not.   Apparently some workers think Stegosaurs are sister group
> to cerapodans (in a clade excluding ankylosaurs).

Interesting! Why?

> By the way, are there any major objections to placing Iguanodon as a
> primitive hadrosauridae?  I didn't see any need to maintain that as a
small
> family of its own (but I have this dreadful feeling someone is going to
tell
> me Iguanodontidae has priority).

I don't know when Iguanodontidae was named, all I can say is that
Hadrosauridae has IIRC got a stem-based definition that explicitely excludes
*Iguanodon*. If you ignore this (no problem apart from confusion, PhyloCode
has still not been implemented :-) ), then I don't see any further problem
with that.

Just what do you put into Fabrosauridae? *Fabrosaurus* (a nomen dubium,
BTW), *Lesothosaurus*... anything else?