RE: Me vs. Makovicky et al.- comparison and consensus

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> > Glut's encyclopedia was certainly published.  Not viable for new taxonomy, 
> > but published >nonetheless.
>
> I'm a little slow today, but is somebody actually suggesting that 
> "Alashansaurus" is a valid genus, and that Glut gets the attribution for 
> the name?

No.  Glut (2003) included a caveat in his book saying is wasn't "to be used 
for formal taxonomic purposes" (pg. ix).  Thus even though he published the 
name, it's still a nomen nudum.

I'm very surprised Lambert got credit for Coloradisaurus.  Though my 
memories of the book are vague, I don't recall it being the type to include 
species names, diagnoses (13.1.1) or bibliographic references to the 
technical literature (13.1.2).  Are we sure it's valid?

> I had thought that Currie and Padian (1997) defined a stem-based 
> Oviraptorosauria (_Oviraptor_ <-- _Passer_), which would put therizinosaurs 
> inside the Oviraptorosauria alongside the 'traditional' oviraptorosaurs 
> (oviraptorids, caenagnathids, &c).  Thus, this Oviraptorosauria is 
> equivalent (at least in content) to Enigmosauria.  Having said that, I'm 
> not sure that this *expansion* of the Oviraptorosauria is such a good idea; 
> IMHO it is preferable to have a less inclusive Oviraptorosauria, and a new 
> clade name for this group + therizinosaur(oid)s.

Indeed they did, and I agree with you.

Mickey Mortimer