[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Not titanosaurs ...


Matt Bonnan wrote:

Well, it depends on whose classification scheme for sauropods you go by.
The two recent ones (Wilson and Sereno, 1998; Upchurch, 1998) don't appear
to consider Pleurocoelus outright, but Wilson and Sereno mention that
Pleurocoelus would fall closer to Brachiosaurus than the traditional
titanosaurs.

The thing is, _Pleurocoelus_ may need revision. I vaguely recall that one specimen (_Pleurocoelus_ sp.) looks a lot more titanosaur-like than other material named _Pleurocoelus_. Considering that a lot of unassociated material has been referred to this genus, and _Pleurocoelus_ has been described from both Maryland and Texas, the genus _Pleurocoelus_ may be a polyglot.

In any case, it is amazing how similar the ulna and humerus of Alamosaurus
look to that weird sauropod from Poland, Opisthocoelicaudia,

Mongolia, not Poland. I think it was described in Poland by Dr Borsuk-Bialynicka. The only Polish titanosaur is _Succinodon_ (heh heh)!!

One more thing before I go home. After reading Wilson and Sereno's and Salgado and co's reviews of sauropod phylogeny, I think it was a little unfair that _Cathetosaurus lewisi_ was sunk into _Camarasaurus_. The anterodorsal rotation of the ilium seen in _C. lewisi_ could be a derived feature which it shares with the Titanosauriformes rather than an autapomorphy within the genus _Camarasaurus_.


Tim

P.S. "Succinodon" is not a dinosaur.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com