RE: The Theropod Anchisaurus?

[Emma Rainforth <EmmaR@mesalands.edu>]

Thanks Tom, yep, Lull does indeed say exactly that (in 1904 & 1915). 

For good measure :-)

In 1915, his classification of Conn. Valley skeletal material is:
        - Saurischia (O)
                *Theropoda (SubO)
                        #Megalosauria (SuperF)
                                ^Anchisauridae (F)
                                        Anchisaurus
                                        Ammosaurus
                        #Compsognathidae (SuperF)
                                ^Podokesaurida (F)
                                        Podokesaurus

In 1953, in the descriptions of the skeletal material of the Connecticut
Valley, his classification is as follows (in brackets after the genera, are
the footprints he attributes to them):
        - Saurischia (O)
                +Sauropoda
                * Theropoda (SubO)
                        # Prosauropoda (InfraO)
                                ^Anchisauridae (F) 
                                        Anchisaurus (Anchisauripus)
                        # Coelurosauria (InfraO)
                                ^Ammosauridae (F) 
                                        Ammosaursus (none)
                                ^Podokesauridae (F)
                                        Podokesaurus (Grallator)
                        # Carnosauria (InfraO)
                                (no skeletal material) - Eubrontes

He then classifies the footprints by supposed-trackmaker, but there is a
discrepancy: in the footprint classification, he places the Anchisauridae
(containing Anchisaurus) within the Coelurosauria (whereas a few pages
earlier they are in the Prosauropoda)! (The only prosauropod print in the
classification is Otozoum)
Unfortunately there is no discussion as to how he identified trackmakers, or
whose classification (of skeletal remains) he follows.

So even in 1953 he considers Anchisaurus to be theropod; can someone
enlighten me as to when prosauropods were removed from Theropods? (Tom?!)
Given the internal inconsistency, I suppose it is plausible that this is
simply a mistake in his old age.

                        
emma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. [mailto:tholtz@geol.umd.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:08 PM
> To: dinosaur
> Subject: The Theropod Anchisaurus?
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Some of you were wondering why Lull might have a) named Anchisauripus
> after
> Anchisaurus, and b) considered Anchisauripus theropod tracks.
> 
> Don't have a copy of Lull handy, but one likely reason was that he, like
> many authors at thet time, considered anchisaurids and plateosaurids to be
> theropods.  Huene did not name "Prosauropoda" until 1920 and
> Sauropodomorpha
> until 1932.  Most earlier authors considered the then-known prosauropods
> (including relatively complete taxa such as Anchisaurus, Ammosaurus, and
> Plateosaurus) as primitive members of Theropoda.
> 
>               Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
>               Vertebrate Paleontologist
> Department of Geology         Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
> University of Maryland                College Park Scholars
>               College Park, MD  20742
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/tholtz.htm
> http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite
> Phone:        301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
> Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661     Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796