Re: Thecodontia defined and saurischian Marasuchus

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 12:22 AM

> Thecodontia (Protorosaurus + Thecodontosaurus)

IMHO the idea of defining Thecodontia is at least as wrongheaded as that of 
defining Reptilia. Thecodontia is _meant_ to be paraphyletic! Even more so 
than Reptilia (which is older than 1859)!

> Suppose there is such thing as a thecodont now, and it's a
> heterodefinitional synonym of Archosauromorpha.  Were protorosaurs,
> rhynchosaurs and trilophosaurs ever thought of as thecodonts?  I figured
> they were eosuchians or something back in the day.

Rhynchosaurs were (of all things...) rhynchocephalians, protorosaurs were 
first lizards and then "eosuchians", and I guess trilophosaurs were 
"eosuchians", too...

> Archosauria (Crocodylus + Megalosaurus)
> I actually like this definition, since birds weren't
> originally archosaurs, right?

Right. Archosauria was a subclass/superorder of Reptilia.

> Crocodylotarsi (Crocodylus <- Vultur)
>
> Crurotarsi (Crocodylus + Belodon + Ornithosuchus)

And it really can't be the other way around? :-(

> Dromaeosuchia (Crocodylus + Ornithosuchus)

Was it necessary to name that clade?

> Ornithosuchia (Ornithosuchus <- Crocodylus, Vultur)

Fine! :-)

> Crocodyliformes (Crocodylus <- Protosuchus)

Not *C.* _+_ *P.*?

> Kischlat presents preliminary results of (his?) analysis, showing the
> following topology-
> [...]

Crocodiles and even *Euparkeria* are dinosauromorphs! Yay! :-(