Re: PROG. PALAEO. '98

[Adam Yates <zooamy@zoo.latrobe.edu.au>]

On Thu, 28 May 1998 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 98-05-28 10:42:42 EDT, darren.naish@port.ac.uk writes:
> 
> << Caudal verts are platicoelous-amphicoelous, so I suppose this is not 
>  a titanosaur. >>
> 
> Since everyone seems to believe that _Opisthocoelicaudia_ is a titanosaur,
> there's no reason to exclude platycoelous/amphicoelous caudals from
> Titanosaur[ia; formes; oidea; idae; take your pick]. These could simply be
> transitional between the familiar procoelous caudals of most titanosaurs and
> the opisthocoelous caudals of _O._
> 
> Dripping with sarcasm...

Touche! Nevertheless I think Phuwiangosaurus (spelling?) may be just such
a basal opisthocoelocaudiine titanosaur as you predict!

cheers

Adam Yates