Re: BRONTOSAURUS FOREVER!

["T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn@yahoo.com>]

--- Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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.

Really? Where the heck do you live? :)
I could see certain kids being picky like that, but I think most adults would
see the long neck, massive body size, relatively small head, and agree that
it's a "brontosaur".

Bakker would refer to _Brachiosaurus_ as a "brontosaur", and he's as much an
influence on layman perceptions as any living scientist.

> Sauropoda contained within Sauropodomorpha is much more intuitive.

I never proposed to do away with that - that's been a solid feature of
dinosaurian taxonomy for a long time now.

=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey@bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com