NEW ANKYLOSAUR PHYLOGENY

[Tetanurae@aol.com]

Jim Kirkland writes
<<It is below the Ankylosaur crown group of Nodos and Ankylosaurs, thus it
 probably should be used to define a new clade aboce Scelidosaurus.>>

Does your new phylogeny show that Scelidosaur is closer to ankylosaurs than
stegosaurs are?  From what I had thought (admittedly w/o personal
examination), stegosaurs were closer to ankylosaurs than Scelidosaurus was
because of some features of the skull like seven premaxillar teeth (though
admitedly you can't check this with Scelidosaurus) and three superorbitals).

I suppose I could simply wait a week and read the paper.....

 <<It is included in my cladogram from the Gastonia paper. Both Ken C. and I
have
 trouble with the Shamosaurines being less derived than Polacanthines, as
 they share some significant cranial characters with the ankylosaurines.
 But this is the cladogram we get at the moment.>>

How much skull material is known from polocanthines?

Peter Buchholz
Tetanurae@aol.com

But the speak Portuguese in Brasil!!