Re: PT paper

["T. Mike Keesey" <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>]

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> 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?

I thought _Saltasaurus_ was the sauropodomorph anchor.

--T. Mike Keesey                                    <tkeese1@gl.umbc.edu>
WORLDS                                  <http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~tkeese1>
THE DINOSAURICON                               <http://dinosaur.umbc.edu>