tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post2049902923241356752..comments2024-03-18T18:17:34.333+01:00Comments on Theropoda: Ornithodesmus: Reloaded – the Fate of Dromaeosauridae?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-122501710839953602014-07-07T13:15:26.265+02:002014-07-07T13:15:26.265+02:00PS: even in my dataset Ornithodesmus results in a ...PS: even in my dataset Ornithodesmus results in a particular dromaeosaurid position, but it's just one among alternative maniraptoran placements.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-37054034722365719512014-07-07T10:22:17.390+02:002014-07-07T10:22:17.390+02:00Hope the Lori paper/matrix will be published soon:...Hope the Lori paper/matrix will be published soon: I'm very interested to read it!<br />As I've said before, I'm inclined to prefer systematic discussions over taxonomic ones. Ornithodesmidae and Deinodontidae are just old names almost never used by the authors. I think resurrecting them is not appropriate. These would be taxonomic zombies, not an improvement: the taxonomic system is Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-76235692251812571942014-07-07T10:09:21.848+02:002014-07-07T10:09:21.848+02:00Not the only phylogenetic analysis.... ;) In the ...Not the only phylogenetic analysis.... ;) In the Lori matrix, Ornithodesmus emerges as a dromaeosaurid in a particular position.<br /><br />I can relate to both sides of the nomenclature issue. On the one hand, I agree with you that dredging up old names when newer ones are established would cause problems. On the other hand, I don't like that no one goes through the official route to sinkMickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-77147585630653386242014-07-06T22:54:36.940+02:002014-07-06T22:54:36.940+02:00Ah, yeah, I thought that Matthew and Brown named D...Ah, yeah, I thought that Matthew and Brown named Dromaeosauridae.Nick Gardnerhttp://whyihatetheropods.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-70152062338323552902014-07-06T07:10:35.557+02:002014-07-06T07:10:35.557+02:00Well, his Ornithodesmidae is just redundant with O...Well, his Ornithodesmidae is just redundant with Ornithodesmus under the only performed phylogenetic analysis of that taxon ;-)... I like much Martyniuk book, but the taxonomic part is problematic "deontologically". Has he tested phylogenetically Ornithodemus, the fossil, or just worked with the name? Taxonomy follows systematics (phylogenetic analysis), not the contrary. This is why I Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-86134659195328583172014-07-06T01:38:19.747+02:002014-07-06T01:38:19.747+02:00Ornithodesmidae DOES have a definition- (Ornithode...Ornithodesmidae DOES have a definition- (Ornithodesmus cluniculus <- Archaeopteryx lithographica, Passer domesticus, Paronychodon lacustris, Pterodactylus antiquus) (Martyniuk, 2012), from a work that DID refer to the same content as Dromaeosauridae.Mickey Mortimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831823442911513851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-19662387379202780502014-07-05T20:23:16.512+02:002014-07-05T20:23:16.512+02:00No. Matthew e Brown (1922) istituirono Dromaeosaur...No. Matthew e Brown (1922) istituirono DromaeosauriNae all'interno di DeinodontiDae. Furono Colber e Russell (1968) ad istituire Dromaeosauridae.Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-32724299891251414762014-07-05T18:10:53.708+02:002014-07-05T18:10:53.708+02:00Scusa se mi permetto Andrea, ma non era stato usat...Scusa se mi permetto Andrea, ma non era stato usato per la prima volta nello stesso documento che istituisce _Dromaeosaurus_ (Matthew & Brown, 1922) ossia 92 anni fa? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396504386615815210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-725485933101550872014-07-05T15:13:12.936+02:002014-07-05T15:13:12.936+02:00"Dromaeosauridae has been consistently used t..."Dromaeosauridae has been consistently used to refer to this group for the past 100 years."... err, as far as I recall, "Dromaeosauridae" was named first around 45 years ago...Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-18576974414869520282014-07-05T15:11:49.458+02:002014-07-05T15:11:49.458+02:00Nick, that's what my post said. :-)Nick, that's what my post said. :-)Andrea Cauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10855060597677361866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156944512466583246.post-27407590908488069232014-07-05T14:45:14.021+02:002014-07-05T14:45:14.021+02:00Dromaeosauridae has a phylogenetic definition, Orn...Dromaeosauridae has a phylogenetic definition, Ornithodesmidae does not. This makes Dromaeosauridae possible to label on a cladogram "objectively", while Ornithodesmidae cannot be used this way.<br />Ornithodesmidae is referred to in less than 10 papers, and never referring to the same content as Dromaeosauridae.<br />Dromaeosauridae has been consistently used to refer to this group forNick Gardnerhttp://whyihatetheropods.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com