Re: Even more last papers for 2005

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> In other words, the etymology was deliberate.

Yes.  Most likely 'Pseudosuchia' was intended to exclude crocodilians, which 
is why the name was chosen.

> More importantly, people followed the original intent = the etymology
> throughout the next century by always excluding the crocodyl...iforms at
> least. In many cases it simply doesn't make sense to return to the concept
> the original author had; in this one it does.

Yes, Pseudosuchia is one case where the original content and traditional 
usage differ.  For most of its history B.C. ("before cladistics"), 
Pseudosuchia became a wastebasket group for basal archosaurs, with aetosaurs 
(the founding members of Zittel's Pseudosuchia) actually excluded.  It came 
to be that every kind of 'thecodont' that wasn't a proterosuchian, a 
phytosaur or an aetosaur was put in the Pseudosuchia.  Thus, rauisuchians, 
sphenosuchians, _Euparkeria_, Ornithosuchus_, and even _Sharovipteryx_ 
(=_Podopteryx_) and _Longisquama_ were regarded as 'pseudosuchians' - and 
the ancestors of birds were thought to lie somewhere among this lot.

Cheers

Tim