Re: Aliwalia [from Adam Yates]

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > Indeed one of these associations has been
> > named: Eucnemosaurus fortis Van Hoepen, 1920.

Really? Everywhere I've read that name so far it said "*Eucnemesaurus 
fortis* van Hoepen, 1920" -- looks logical, if "kneme" means "leg", as in 
*Bradycneme*.

> > Cladistic analysis of basal sauropodomorph relationships finds that 
> > Riojasaurus and Eucnemosaurus are sister taxa within a large clade that 
> > also contains Massospondylidae, Yunnanosaurus, Anchisauridae, 
> > Melanorosauridae, Antetonitrus and traditional sauropods (Vulcanodontidae 
> > and Eusauropoda) to the exclusion of Plateosauridae and more basal 
> > sauropodomorphs.

Oh nooooooo... sauropodomorph phylogeny changes yet again... I need a robust 
phylogeny for my thesis... <sniff>

What does Massospondylidae contain? I thought it was defined "everything 
closer to *Massospondylus* than to *Plateosaurus*" (which would 
unfortunately include all of the above)? *Massospondylus* and 
*Lufengosaurus* perhaps??? *Coloradisaurus*???

"Melanorosauridae"? So *Melanorosaurus* is less fragmentary than the new 
sauropod book apparently says?

*Massospondylus* as a sauropod. Will I ever get used to this... ;-)

> Those old prosauropod names appear to be making a comeback 
> (_Eucnemosaurus_,
> _Plateosauravus_, _Gresslyosaurus_, etc).

Does someone have the ref of the paper in which *Gresslyosaurus* was 
reinstated? (Of course a pdf would be appreciated as well... <g>)

> Though I wonder what the maxilla does belong to...?

Yes...

However, judging from what I've seen of it (in Glut's encyclopedia IIRC), it 
looks horribly eroded...