Re: PT paper

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/30/99 1:46:37 PM EST, th81@umail.umd.edu writes:

<< Which is fine: if the clade uniting Neornithes and _Cetiosaurus_ is the
same
 clade as that uniting Neornithes and _Triceratops_, then Dinosauria has
 priority and "Eusaurischia" is a junior synonym not to be used.  If,
 instead, _Cetiosaurus_ is found to be closer to Neornithes than to
 _Triceratops_, then Eusaurischia is a useful term. >>

(Gotta see that paper; my JVP 19(1) will likely arrive shortly after SVP
cashes my dues check, now in the mail.)

Meanwhile: ARRGH! Not Cetiosaurus! Why not Diplodocus or Shunosaurus or some
other better-known sauropod?