Re: Antetonitrus

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

Adam Yates wrote-

> I also notice that Mickey suggests that Euskelosaurus
> might be another basal sauropod, following the J.
> Syst. Pal. paper. I strongly doubt this now.
> Euskelosaurus is based on a very poor type and there
> are at least two taxa within the Lower Elliot that it
> could belong to, so I recommend abandoning the name as
> a nomen dubium (A practice I know Mickey doesnât like
> but some of these old names are so bothersome, Iâm
> happier with a relaxed attitude towards dismissing
> taxa as nomen dubia).

Interesting.  If Euskelosaurus truly could belong to more than one valid
taxon, I'd agree it's nomen dubium.  Don't suppose you could reveal what
those two taxa are? :-)

> Anyway the codings for
> Euskelosaurus in the J. Syst. Pal. paper were taken
> from the Kromme Spruit material described in the 70âs
> by Van Heerden. The next available name for this
> material is Plateosauravus cullingworthi and this is
> name I now use. So what is Plateosauravus and why
> isnât it in Yates and Kitchingâs analysis? Mainly
> because when scored from the Kromme Spruit material
> alone the taxon is highly unstable (could be a basal
> sauropodomorph, a prosauropod or a sauropod) and also
> because a much more complete specimen has been found
> (with skull) that is probably referable to
> Plateosauravus. Until I get a chance to examine that
> specimen Iâd rather leave the taxon out.

Can't wait to see that published.  I love how all these old names are coming
back.  First Efraasia, now Plateosauravus.  Soon we'll have the return of
Aetonyx and Megadactylus...

> Gongxianosaurus will almost certainly be a sauropod
> but one more basal than Antetonitrus (based on the
> dorsal vertebrae).

Hmm.  As it has been thought of as sauropod sensu stricto, this supports
your opinion Antetonitrus would have been called a prosauropod five years
ago.

Keep up the great work!

Mickey Mortimer