Re: Ankylosauromorpha page

["T. Mike Keesey" <tmk@dinosauricon.com>]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Mike Taylor wrote:

> So finally, my actual question is just this: doesn't anyone else but
> me feel uncomfortable about using sets of definitions which leave some
> specimens in this taxonomic no-man's-land?

They're not in no-man's land. They're in _Ankylosauroidea_ (by the
definitions Mickey posted).

And there's nothing to prevent one from naming Clade(_Ankylosaurus_ <--
_Nodosaurus_). In fact, I think I have seen something like this before:
Ankylosauridae = (Ankylosaurus <-- Nodosaurus)
Polacanthinae = (Polacanthus <-- Ankylosaurus)
Shamosaurinae = (Shamosaurus <-- Ankylosaurus)
Ankylosaurinae = (Ankylosaurus <-- Shamosaurus)

Of course, then you get some ankylosaurids that aren't polacanthines,
shamosaurines, or ankylosaurines -- but, eh, so what?

_____________________________________________________________________________
T. MICHAEL KEESEY
 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>