Re: BRONTOSAURUS FOREVER!

[Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>]

> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>
> 
> Perhaps _Sauropoda_ could be re-defined with more external
> specifiers, or re-defined as a node-based clade, and Brontosauria
> could be used for the (possibly) broader stem-based clade.

I don't think it would be at all helpful to formalise Brontosauria as
more inclusive than Sauropoda.  _If_ the reason we all like the
"Bronto" prefix is that the Whole World recognises it (that _is_ the
reason, right?) then we should acknowledge that what the Whole World
recognises it _as_ is something much more specific.  I think most
laymen would be very surprised to be shown a picture of, say,
_Brachiosaurus_ and told that it's a brontosaur.

Sauropoda contained within Sauropodomorpha is much more intuitive.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?" --
         E. M. Forster.