Re: PT paper

[Pharris Nicholas J <pharrinj@plu.edu>]

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

> In a message dated 3/30/99 2:49:20 PM EST, th81@umail.umd.edu writes:
> 
> << Okay, so the type of _Cetiosaurus_ sucks.  
> 
> I can certainly go along with the historical reasons

And then we could anchor Thyreophora with _Hylaeosaurus_.  I thought it
was kinda funny to hear that _H. armatus_, the first-named ankylosaur,
likely belongs to the most recently named important ankylosaur subclade,
the Polacanthinae.

-NP