Re: NMMNH Bulletin 46 (Drepanosaurs) available

[Matt Celeskey <deadanimal@hmnh.org>]

Although Senter & Renesto et al. include the same genera in  
Simiosauria & Drepanosauromorpha, respectively, the definitions of the  
two groups differ:

Senter (2004) defines Simiosauria as a stem-based taxon: "all taxa  
more closely related to Drepanosauridae than to Coelurosauravus or  
Sauria."

Drepanosauromorpha (Renesto et al. 2010) is node-based: "the least  
inclusive clade containing Hypuronector limnaios Colbert and Olsen,  
2001 and Megalancosaurus pronenesis Calzavara, Muscio and Wild, 1981."

Simiosauria becomes quite a different thing if, as Renesto et al.  
find, Sauria includes the Drepanosauridae.

Which in some ways is too bad, because they'll always be Monkey- 
Lizards to me.


-Matt Celeskey.





On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Jocelyn Falconnet wrote:

> Seems the taxonomic content of Drepanosauromorpha Renesto, Spielmann,
> Lucas & Spagnoli is identical to that of Simiosauria Senter, 2004 (I
> don't have the paper at my disposal now, though). Would be interesting
> to check both definition cause I suspect they may be synonymous (given
> the remarks of David on Drepanosaurinae / Megalancosaurinae).
>
> 2010/1/25 David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:
> > > > Megalancosaurinae = Drepanosaurus + Megalancosaurus.
> >
> > Wrong under ICZN Article 36.1.
> > http://www.iczn.org/iczn/includes/page.jsp?article=36 When  
> > Drepanosauridae
> > was coined, Drepanosaurinae, -ini, -ina, and -oidea were  
> > automatically
> > coined with it, so Drepanosaurinae already exists and has priority  
> > over
> > Megalancosaurinae. In other words, whichever subfamily of  
> > Drepanosauridae
> > that contains *Drepanosaurus* must be called Drepanosaurinae. It  
> > does not
> > matter at all whether the name Drepanosaurinae has ever been used  
> > in a
> > publication.
> --
> Jocelyn Falconnet