Re: questions about the Odontochelys study

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

> (Incidentally, under this hypothesis, pan-Lepidosauria and
> Lepidosauromorpha are different clades--although Archosauromorpha and
> pan-Archosauria are still the same.)

That's apparently because some people, including editors of journals, had 
unfounded fears about the stability of branch-based definitions back in 
those days.

> > And I don't recommend making such a name up just yet :-)
>
> Why not, as long as the definition collapses should archosaurs prove
> to be descended from the final common ancestor of testudines and
> lepidosaurs?

Would be a waste -- potentially a waste of a good name.

If I find such a clade in my thesis, I'll let you know. :-)

> Well, there's another reason not to make up a name just yet--and
> that's that I can't imagine nobody has *ever* thought to name such a
> group, given how many other strange tetrapod groupings have been
> named. There must be a name floating somewhere in the old literature.

No, because lepidosaurs are the only clade that was not connected to the 
turtles anywhere in the old literature. Birds, archosaurs as a whole, 
pareiasaurs, placodonts (*Placochelys* was even originally described as a 
turtle), diadectids, captorhinids, apparently even mammals, but not 
lepidosaurs.

> ("Reptilia" would almost be a good candidate but eh ... no.)

Hm... B-) B-) B-)

But no. Let it just die so we can reserve it for politics. =8-)