Re: Ankylosauromorpha page

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

> > 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).

To illustrate: http://dinosauricon.com/taxa/ornithomimosauria.html. There
*Archaeornithomimus* is in Ornithomimidae but not in Ornithomiminae. No
problem, it's _just_ in Ornithomimidae. Impossible in Linnaean taxonomy,
where it isn't allowed -- for aesthetic reasons -- that some genera of a
family are in a subfamily and others aren't; that's a great drawback of the
Linnaean system IMHO. Some, including HP Ken Kinman, have therefore begun to
use the term "plesion"; IMHO that's simply not necessary.