Re: Antentonitirus pro-nun-see-a-shun?

["Mickey Mortimer" <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tommy Bradley wrote-


>      Wow!  A brand new Sauropod!  And not just a new Sauropod, but the
earliest one ever found!

First, as Holtz said, Blikanosaurus and Melanorosaurus are equally old.
Isn't Euskelosaurus too, indeterminate or not?

And the main reason for replying-
Actually, Antetonitrus would probably be thought of as a prosauropod using
the traditional division between the two sauropodomorph groups.  After all,
it is closest to Blikanosaurus and Lessemsaurus.  The revolutionary part is
really the utilization of a stem-based Sauropoda that encompasses everything
closer to sauropods sensus stricto than to Plateosaurus.  Thus, even though
the phylogeny is similar to precladist notions of prosauropod paraphyly, the
taxonomy is different in that it calls the more derived "prosauropods"
sauropods.  It's basically just a fluke of using Sereno and Wilson's (1998)
definitions (which assumed Prosauropoda sensu lato was monophyletic) on a
topology that supports a paraphyletic Prosauropoda sensu lato.  Not that I'm
against using this definition of Sauropoda, but people have to realize it's
more of a change in taxonomy than knowledge that's giving us so many
early/basal sauropods.  Note I'm not trying to take away from the importance
of Antetonitrus either, as it's comparative completeness is welcome in this
part of the sauropodomorph tree.  I wonder where Gongxianosaurus would go...

Mickey Mortimer