[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Protoavis is part pterosauromorph, no details about Novacaesareaia, etc.

Arghh. A missing letter in the html made the ex-theropods cladogram not work. Now it's fixed. There's a link to it at the top of the theropod cladogram.

Roberto Takata wrote-

At the alphabetical taxon list:
http://students.washington.edu/eoraptor/Alpha%20List.html

_Eoraptor lunensis_ is not listed... _Herrerasaurus
ischigualastensis_, _Staurikosaurus pricei_ are not too.

Only taxa I've completed entries for get placed in the alphabetical taxa list. You'll note obvious taxa like Velociraptor and Ornithomimus aren't there yet either. But you will notice Eoraptor and herrerasaurids in the non-theropod cladogram (since I follow Langer's topology), and once I complete their entries, they'll be in the alphabetical list too.

Tim Williams wrote-

Now, isn't Pterosauromorpha defined as "Archosauria closer to _Pterodactylus antiquus_ than to _Vultur gryphus_"? This means that the validity of Pterosauromorpha is predicated on pterosaurs being archosaurs. If pterosaurs are not archosaurs but closer to prolacertiforms (non-archosaur archosauromorphs), then Pterosauromorpha is extinguished. Thus, a "basal pterosauromorph" must be some kind of primitive archosaur. The only potential basal pterosauromorph I know of is _Scleromochlus_, and this is contentious. I'm really looking forward to seeing what Atanassov has in stall...

Well, Padian (1997) defined it as "Pterosauria and all ornithodiran archosaurs closer to them than to dinosaurs". The Ornithodira part is redundant.
Kischlat (2001) defined it as (Pterosaurus <- Megalosaurus), without the archosaurian qualifier. Of course, Pterosaurus isn't a pterosaur, but you could assume it's a mispelling of Pterodactylus.
Then Padian (2004) used the definition you quoted. I tend to think of cases like this as merely substituting a more exact word for "taxa" (in this case, "Archosauria"), as opposed to mandating the definition only maintain validity if the included taxa actually belong to the clade specified.
In any case, Atanassov does find pterosaurs to be archosaurs, and I have them provisionally as archosaurs in my cladogram as well. Atanassov's new taxon is named online if you Google search.

Mickey Mortimer