What three Sauropods should SafariLTD make?

[Newt]

The thing with "prosauropods" is, "Prosauropoda" was defined as all animals more closely related to Plateosaurus engelhardti than to Saltasaurus loricatus.  Modern analyses have found it to contain the same animals as Plateosauridae which makes it a junior synonym of the latter.  The modern analyses have also found most of the animals often thought of as "prosauropods" are not plateosaurids/"prosauropods" by definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateosauridae

The thing with that definition is, it's a fairly recent cladistic definition that does not reflect the traditional concept of the Prosauropoda. Everything you wrote makes sense only within the framework of a modern, cladistic approach to taxonomy; the workers who originally erected most of these taxa would be bewildered by these arguments.

This taxonomy discussion is fun, but probably shouldn't be in this thread, and I apologize for my part in the derailment. Give me a few days and I'll start a big fat taxonomy thread with diagrams and everything! Or someone else can, if they like.

Back on topic, whatever happened to Anchisaurus? I never hear about it anymore. It could make a neat toy.

[Sim]

Prosauropoda isn't the only group that's been defined to mean something different to what it used to refer to in the past.  In the past, Coelurosauria was used to refer to all small theropods.  Today, it's got a very different meaning!  Carnosauria has traditionally been used as a dumping ground for all large theropods and even some non-dinosaurs.  Like Megalosaurus itself, the family Megalosauridae has traditionally been used as a dumping ground which included unrelated dinosaurs.

[Newt]

There's a difference between massively polyphyletic wastebasket taxa like those you mentioned, which are unacceptable under any taxonomic system, and merely paraphyletic taxa like Prosauropoda, which are perfectly acceptable under older taxonomies but not under cladistics. "Prosauropoda" was merely a shorthand for "all Sauropodomorpha other than Sauropoda"; cladistic taxonomy does not permit such groups to be recognized. Which would be fine, if not for ranks - you can't have ranked taxa without paraphyly.

If that all sounds like nonsense, it will become clearer in the taxonomy thread - coming soon!

[Sim]

I get the feeling lots of people would really like it if you managed to get the definition of "Prosauropoda" changed from what it is now to "all Sauropodomorpha other than Sauropoda"! 

[Halichoeres]

There's a difference between massively polyphyletic wastebasket taxa like those you mentioned, which are unacceptable under any taxonomic system, and merely paraphyletic taxa like Prosauropoda, which are perfectly acceptable under older taxonomies but not under cladistics. "Prosauropoda" was merely a shorthand for "all Sauropodomorpha other than Sauropoda"; cladistic taxonomy does not permit such groups to be recognized. Which would be fine, if not for ranks - you can't have ranked taxa without paraphyly.

If that all sounds like nonsense, it will become clearer in the taxonomy thread - coming soon!

I'm actually a big fan of Hennig's "stem-" terminology for paraphyletic groups, although I'll admit that it becomes unwieldy when you're talking about lineages that have undergone serious pruning. Or lineages that have no crown.

Also, I would love to see an Anchisaurus. In all my dinosaur books as a kid, it was the "other" prosauropod. And its skeleton is very well known!

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Also, I would love to see an Anchisaurus. In all my dinosaur books as a kid, it was the "other" prosauropod. And its skeleton is very well known!

Hey, you're right! Let's give Anchisaurus some love too!