Re: Wilson & Sereno's Sauropod Phylogeny

[Tompaleo@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/26/98 4:33:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
th81@umail.umd.edu writes:

> 
>  Conspicuous by their absence are: _Mamenchisaurus_, _Rebbachisaurus_,
>  _Rayososaurus_, the In Abaka sauropod (okay, it still has to be described,
>  but I was hoping it was going to come out in this paper...), _Cetiosaurus_,
>  _Phuwiangosaurus_, _Astrodon_/_Pleurocoelus_, and ingroup relationships of
>  Diplodocoidea and Titanosauria.  Granted, this would make things even
longer
>  and more complicated, but I'd still like to see where these fit in this
tree.
> 
>  


I too was disappointed with this and was about to lament it to the list until
you beat me to it ;-)

Of course my only concern had to do with Astrodon (Pleurocoelus). I had heard
that some people (I need to find the ref) regard Astrodon as a basal
Titanosaurid and more recently (including this paper) I heard the move was on
to place it back in the Brachiosauridae.I wonder how much the topology of the
tree would change had they considered these (and this) genera.
I also noted in the refs section that important papers by Marsh and Hatcher
regarding Astrodon (Pleurocoelus) were not even listed which could explain
their omission of same.
I would be interested to hear what those on this list that know anything of
Astrodon to speculate on it's affinities.


Cheers,

Thomas R. Lipka
Paleontological/Geological Studies