... as I said in my original post, _Ornithopoda_ isn't done yet.
Since basal _Ornithopoda_ have not been the subject of many analyses, I will
probably simplify the structure (big polytomies), as with basal
_Sauropodomorpha_.
[snip]
See original post.
Oops. :-(
> --Apatosaurinae > |--Eobrontosaurus > `--+--Apatosaurus > `--Brontosaurus > > What supports _Brontosaurus_ being a separate species?
You mean genus?
I am provisionally (note that word!) using special stem-based definitions for
all genera:
(x is a species.)
Genus(x) = Clade(x <- all other species used as internal specifiers for genera)
Thus, _Brontosaurus_ would be Clade(_excelsus_ <- all other type species of
genera [including _ajax_]). The only way to invalidate it would be to show that
_excelsus_ is a synonym of a type species of an older genus (_Apatosaurus
ajax_???), or that it is ancestral to another type species.
> Why are _Neovenator_ and _Acrocanthosaurus_ not carcharodontosaurines or > allosaurines?
It seemed to me word was still out on which side they belonged to.
> Why is _Stenonychosaurus_ a separate taxon from _Troodon_?
I think there's been DML discussion on this, but it could be argued that
_Troodon_, being a tooth taxon, should be considered dubious. Dubious taxa are
simply shown as _incertae sedis_, since the designation of _nomen dubium_ is a
little subjective (or, at best, prone to change) for my tastes. (Well, so is
_incertae sedis_ -- but I kind of need that one.)
So you regard the other material as _Stenonychosaurus_?
Nick Gardner