Re: Ankylosauromorpha page

["Mickey_Mortimer11" <Mickey_Mortimer11@email.msn.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote-

> (1) Ankylosauromorpha are thyreophorans that are closer to
*Scelidosaurus*,
> *Minmi*, Polacanthidae, Nodosauridae, and Ankylosauridae, than to
> *Stegosaurus*. [...]
> (2) Ankylosauria are ankylosauromorphs that are closer to *Minmi*,
> *Gastonia*, *Edmontonia*, and *Euoplocephalus* than to *Scelidosaurus*.
[No
> typo, *Ankylosaurus* and *Stegosaurus* are not mentioned.] [...]
> (3) Polacanthidae are ankylosaurs that are closer to *Gastonia* than to
> *Edmontonia and *Euoplocephalus*. [...]
> (4) Nodosauridae are ankylosaurs that are more closely related to
> *Edmontonia* than to *Gastonia* or *Euoplocephalus*. [...]
> (5) Ankylosauridae are ankylosaurs that are more closely related to
> *Euoplocephalus* than to *Gastonia* or *Edmontonia*."

*insane laughter* Why?  Why must he have such horrible definitions?  Can't
people get eponymous definitions in their heads?  Nodosaur phylogeny is not
well studied at all, Nodosaurus could very easily not be a nodosaurid if
these are followed.  Even more bothersome is defining Polacathidae on
Gastonia of all things!  Do you know how many people don't think
Polacanthidae as used by Carpenter is monophyletic?  Why not just use
Polacanthus?  Carpenter never even tested their monophyly, he assumed the
three families were monophyletic a priori and only tested interfamilial
relationships, then used family-level OTU's to test intrafamily level
relationships.  And defining Ankylosauridae on Euoplocephalus?!  Is
Ankylosaurus poorly known or something?  I mean, come on....  That
definition of Ankylosauria is .... is.... arghh.  You know he never included
the putative synapomorphies keeping Scelidosaurus out of Eurypoda
(Stegosauria + Ankylosauria) in his analysis.  Indeed, he cites the only
reasons for putting Scelidosaurus sister to eurypods as being historical
tradition and Early Jurassic age.  The Ankylosauromorph characters are not
as numerous as you may think- cingulum on cheek teeth; ornamentation on
cranial elements; preacetabulum horizontally developed; pubic body massive
and dorsolaterally rotated; cervical rings.  I'm not saying Scelidosaurus
isn't an ankylosauromorph (name so unceccessary... cringe), but you should
at least TEST this hypothesis before potentially defining stegosaurs as
ankylosaurs.
Isn't the _obvious_ phylogenetic taxonomy for Ankylosauria-
Ankylosauria- everything closer to Ankylosaurus than Stegosaurus
Nodosauridae- everything closer to Nodosaurus than Ankylosaurus and
Polacanthus
Polacanthidae- everything closer to Polacanthus than Nodosaurus and
Ankylosaurus
Ankylosauridae- everything closer to Ankylosaurus than Nodosaurus and
Polacanthus
What would have been so hard about that?
* end rant *

Mickey Mortimer