Re: Meet me & see my website

["Nick Gardner" <ratites637@hotmail.com>]

Steven Mahon wrote-
> Ooh. I didn't know there was a Dilo + Neo clade...
> have to add that....

It's not actually a {Dilophosaurus + Neotheropoda} clade, it's just that in 
your cladogram, the node is the same as the apomorphy-based clade Averostra 
(Paul 2002).  Averostra is the clade {Avepoda with at least one accessory 
maxillary opening in the lateral wall of the antorbital fossa that led into  
a bony mediorostral maxillary sinus + Dromaeosauridae}.  I thought that you 
were aware of it, perhaps, because you used Avepoda, also named and defined 
by Paul (2002).  Avepoda is clade {Theropoda with feet in which metatarsal I 
did not contact the distal tarsals + Neotheropoda}.  Isn't there a defintion 
of Neotheropoda that includes Coelophysis?


> I had REAL trouble doing this section... REAL
> trouble... I read some earlier posts from a few years
> ago & found out (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> stem def. of Oviraptorosauria came out (defined)
> BEFORE the node-based one. I think the book it was in
> had uncertain validity though. Anyways, whaich of
> those Enigmosauria def.'s came out first? And, since
> Enigmosauria isnt defined (correct me if I'm wrong
> again) but shouldn't it go in quotes?

As I noted in my original post, Enigmosauria has not been formally defined.  
The name was proposed by HP Keesey awhile back and it later appeared in a 
book.  I would personally like to know the citation for that book, I think 
it's the Isle of Wight book... I'm unsure, what is it done in cases in which 
a taxon is named but not defined?


> Like I said above this section was hard to do because
> of all the definitions... the definition of
> Ovraptorosauria I used was (Oviraptor > Neornithes) &
> I thought the only other one was (Oviraptor +
> Chirostnotes)? (the same as Oviraptoroidea). So is
> that the third definition (Correct me if I'm wrong
> AGAIN)? I excluded Avimimus because I used The node
> based Enigmosauria (Oviraptor + Enigmosaurus) & don't
> common phylogenies have Avimimus right outside that
> point? (correct me if I'm wrong AGAIN)

I was fairly certain there is a published definition that excludes 
segnosaurs.  I could well be wrong.  However, is there a rule in PhyloCode 
that requires that the earliest proposed definition is the one that should 
be used?  Also, Avimimus has not found as the sistergroup to segnosaurs and 
oviraptorosaurs in any published analysis.  It came out as an oviraptorosaur 
in the published analyses by the AMNH team.  I performed a brief, 
unpublished analysis in which it came out as a paravian, more basal than the 
troodontids, however, I do not consider that analysis to be of much value 
(no characters were used that would have united A. with the oviraptorosaurs, 
it used a lot of suprageneric OTUs, such as a Troodontidae that did not take 
into account the basal troodont Sinovenator, and I know there were typos 
because of the source I used).



Nick Gardner

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail