Re: Enigmosauria Published (basically)

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer11@msn.com>]

Ken Kinman wrote-

>     I think it is premature to assume that these groups form a true clade,
> much less giving it a formal name or cladistic definition.
>      Therefore, why not just call them by the common name "enigmosaurs",
and
> if it turns out to be a paraphyletic assemblage, cladists will simply
> abandon that informal name.  Why the rush to formalize?

Because no one thinks "Enigmosauria" isn't a real group besides- you, who
have yet to present good arguments; Sereno, who has flawed characters and
codings (http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2001Jul/msg00242.html);
Norell, et al., who have not published their arguments yet.

Mickey Mortimer