Re: sauropod

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

On 9/10/07, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> K and T Dykes wrote:
>
> Back to the sauropod _Futalognkosaurus_ ... as well as scraping small
> mammals out between its toenails, this sauropod is notable for other reasons
> (including those mentioned above).  It comes up in a clade with
> _Mendozasaurus_ and _Malawisaurus_ (88% bootstrap support - not bad at all),
> and the authors erect (and define) the new suprageneric clade Lognkosauria
> for this trio.
>
> Looking at the cladogram, this part of sauropod evolution seems to be in
> dire need of some new family-level taxa, instead of a continuing profusion
> of 'subfamilies' and 'tribes'.

I actually like what's been done with _Lognkosauria_, _Lithostrotia_,
_Microraptoria_, etc. Why use family-group taxa, with their endlessly
(and subjectively) changing suffixes when you can just give the clade
a nice, stable name?
-- 
Mike Keesey