Re: Coelurosaur Phylogeny

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

> > Please use Segnosauria as opposed to Therizinosauria. 
>  
> This *was* debunked onlist. 
> If you're using phylogenetic taxonomy, then you should use 
 
...nothing at all, because nothing has ever been validly defined under the 
PhyloCode, which in turn is because the latter isn't implemented yet. 
(Don't worry, it will be, but not even the promised paper by de Queiroz on 
what to do with subspecies etc. has yet been published, so there is no 
consensus on what to do with species names...) 
 
> _Therizinosauria_, 
> since Segnosauria has never been explicitly defined. 
 
Certainly a wise choice if you explicitely want to refer to a certain 
clade. Except if you make a phylogenetic definition for Segnosauria... 
 
(What about {*Segnosaurus galbinensis* > *Oviraptor philoceratops*, 
*Passer domesticus*, *Velociraptor mongoliensis*, *Saurornithoides 
mongoliensis*, *Ornithomimus velox*, *Alvarezsaurus calvoi*, 
*Massospondylus carinatus*}?) 
 
> Synonymy cannot be shown. 
 
Bingo. Neither homodefinitional nor heterodefinitional (different 
definitions, but currently the same content) synonymy. :-) 
 
> If PhyloCode overturns this, fine. Until then.... 
 
I hope Segnosauria will be defined first. I like it more. It sounds 
better, it was invented much earlier, and it refers to more general traits 
(*Beipiaosaurus* was "slow" but did not have "scythes"). 
 
Back to the subject line... everyone is confused by the phylogeny of 
Coelurosauria, or rather by the lack of one. There are several pretty 
recent very big analyses (over 250 characters...) which contradict each 
other. W4MA, at least. :-) 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!