Re: Coelurosaur phylogeny

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Mickey Mortimer (Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com) wrote:

[..]

  The point of my post was to point out the use of a name used in a
_figure_ as being anything applicable to any clade, when there is no
statement accompanying that defines its useage, either a diagnosis,
indication of content, or definition (the last in the sense of PT). The
general usage by word of mouth has led to the idea of what the
Oviraptorosauria + Therizinosauroidea clade can be called, and the use of
this in a figure mentally being put together ... but the idea must be
emplaced at once, not through word-of-mouth, in a paper to usage. Marsh
delineated very clearly what he was calling Theropoda, as did Sereno for
Tyrannoraptora. None were named in figures originally, exclusively in the
original paper, and only in the figure.

  Both "Dromavialae" and "Enigmosauria" are not even nomina nuda, they are
simply useless, inapplicable names. Get them with a published definition,
and this may change.

  Cheers, 

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com