Re: If not "Raptors," then what?

[John Conway <john_conway@mac.com>]

On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 11:35  AM, T. Michael Keesey wrote:

> _Dromaeosauridae_ sensu Sereno (a stem-based clade excluding 
> _Troodon_; I
> forget what the internal specifier was, although by draft PhyloCode 
> rules it
> should be _Dromaeosaurus albertensis_) would work, and it might also 
> include
> _Microraptor_.

Umm... wouldn't this definition include birds, if they are closer to 
dromaeosaurids than to troodontids. Was there more to the definition to 
avoid this?

Or is the Deinonychosauria now so well supported that such a 
possibility was not even considered? :-)

John Conway, Palaeoartist

"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde

Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/phylogenetic/
Palaeoart: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/