[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

sauropods (biggest "dinosaurs"?)




Whether the largest sauropod (whichever one it turns out to be) is the largest "dinosaur" depends on (1) the cladistic definition of Dinosauria adopted and (2) the topology of dinosaur relationships accepted.
In my opinion, if the definition adopted does not include a sauropod specifier (in addition to a theropod and an ornithischian), one is just asking for trouble down the line. One could end up with a formal Dinosauria that includes theropods and ornithischians, but excludes sauropods, and that would be both embarrassing and destabilizing.
I certainly agree that no modern birds should be used as a specifier, as this has already caused too much confusion and trivialization in the bird origins debate (as Adam pointed out). But I hope that the new Dinosauria definition doesn't lack a sauropod specifier just because Owen didn't include one. Otherwise, you will see more people attempting a character-based Dinosauria (and in view of my recent posts, I'm clearly not overly thrilled with that prospect either).
-------Ken Kinman


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp