Talk:Herrerasauridae

Revision of the Herrerasauridae

This webpage should have cites added. Also as usual, Ezcurra (2006) recovered Eoraptor as a basal theropod, more primitive than Neotheropoda, in his cladistic analysis of Eucoelophysis. Alwalkeria is also a basal theropod, based on the similarities to Eoraptor cited by Max Langer in The Dinosauria (2nd edition). Mortimer (2006, online) recovered Agnosphitys, Chindesaurus (incl. Caseosaurus), and Guaibasaurus as basal theropods more derived than Eoraptor. Based on the data listed here, the Herrasauridae page should be updated.

Ezcurra, M.D. (2006). A review of the systematic position of the dinosauriform archosaur Eucoelophysis baldwini Sullivan & Lucas, 1999 from the Upper Triassic of New Mexico, USA." Geodiversitas, 28(4):649-684.

Mortimer, Mickey, 2006. Phylogeny of Taxa. http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html 72.194.116.63 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 15.56 8 March 2007

Synonimizing Herrerasauria with Herrerasauridae

Herrerasauridae (Benedetto, 1973) has priority over Herrerasauria (Galton, 1985) since both clades basically have the same definition Herrerasauridae definition is = Da most inclusive clade containing Herrerasaurus but not Liliensternus and Plateosaurus Herrerasauria definition is = The most inclusive clade containing Herrerasaurus but not Passer domesticus

Both clade basically mean the same thing, due to obvious reasons ^^ Because of this i renamed the page "herrerasauridae": on top of that, Nesbitt (2009) doesnt even include Herrerasauria but Herrerasauridae in its formal phylogenetic analisy in Tawa hallae pdf :), and he found herrerasaurids to be the most basal clade of theropods, even more basal than Eoraptor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on definitions – when Herrerasauridae = Herrerasaurus + Staurikosaurus (Novas, 1992) and Herrerasauria = Herrerasaurus ~ Liliensternus v Plateosaurus (taxa closer to Herrerasaurus than to Liliensternus or Plateosaurus) there is a possibility that non-herrerasaurid herrerasaurians existed, therefore these two names would be not synonymous. Langer (2004) hypothesized that Chindesaurus migh represent non-herrerasaurid herrerasaurian. Ag.Ent talk 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In light of recent papers such as Novas et al. (2021) we should consider splitting Herrerasauria from Herrerasauridae. --Maurissauro (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How about we create an article named Draft:Herrerasauria? Magnatyrannus (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Maurissauro (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Here it is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnatyrannus/sandbox Magnatyrannus (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Acetabulum

The herrerasaurid acetabulum is repeatedly described as closed or partially open in many sources, but Benton (2015 - Vertebrate Paleontology) describes Herrerasaurus 's acetabulum as "fully open", and the illustration taken from Galton (1977) also shows a normal dinosaurian acetabulum (as opposed to something like Marasuchus's). What is the reason for this discrepancy? Kiwi Rex (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's because Herrerasaurus' acetabulum is not as open (or perforate) as in Jurassic-Cretaceous dinosaurs, however if you compare with the condition in non-dinosaurs or early dinosaurs such as Saturnalia, Eoraptor or even Macrocollum, it is considerably more open than all of these. The fully closed condition does not apply to any herrerasaurid (or herrerasaurian) known. All the sources I looked (especially the more recent ones) describe the herrerasaurid acetabulum as simply perforate or partially open (some examples here, here, and here). Figure 5 here illustrates the partially open condition in Herrerasaurus. Maurissauro (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)