[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
In short: taste, judgement and an understanding of the historical
background are required. Any fool can define a clade, but doing it
well is not as easy as it looks. Caveat author!
2009/11/22 Tim Williams <tijawi@yahoo.com>:
> Augusto Haro <augustoharo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suppose this later inclusion should not be considered as
>> the original meaning of the name. If not, Ceratosauria would
>> have to be phylogenetically defined as including both neoceratosaurs
>> and tetanurans to cope with the original meaning.
>
>
> I think you might be overstating the importance of "original meaning" in
> framing definitions and converting time-honored groups to clades. There's no
> rule that says you *must* adhere to the original meaning of a name when
> converting it into a clade name.
>
>
> For example, the name Ornithosuchia was originally erected by Huene to
> include _Ornithosuchus_ (he erected Ornithosuchidae at the same time).
> However, since then Ornithosuchia has been used for a much larger archosaur
> clade, and some definitions (e.g., "the most inclusive clade Aves but not
> Crocodylia") would actually result in clade Ornithosuchia excluding
> _Ornithosuchus_.
>
>
> Personally, I would prefer that Ornithosuchia be defined such that it
> includes _Ornithosuchus_ - for the sole reason that the name was erected
> specifically to include _Ornithosuchus_.
>
>
> Similarly, Pseudosuchia was erected specifically to *exclude* crocodiles
> (hence the name). Yet some definitions of Pseudosuchia allow the
> crocodilian-containing clade Suchia to be a subset of Pseudosuchia, which
> strikes me as ridiculous.
>
>
> In short, for clades such as Ceratosauria, Ornithosuchia and Pseudosuchia I
> think the only nod we should make to "original meaning" is that the
> definition reflects the intent behind the name. Ceratosauria was clearly
> intended to include _Ceratosaurus_; so even if ornithomimids had been
> originally included in this group (they weren't), it shouldn't really matter
> to the current definition.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>