Re: Sereno's (2005) new definitions

[Nick Pharris <npharris@umich.edu>]

Quoting Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>:

> David Marjanovic wrote-
>
> > > Coelophysidae
> > > (Coelophysis bauri + Procompsognathus triassicus)
> > >
> > > Procompsognathinae
> > > (Procompsognathus triassicus <- Coelophysis bauri)
> > >
> > > Coelophysinae
> > > (Coelophysis bauri <- Procompsognathus triassicus)
> >
> > This suggests that the phylogenetic position of *Procompsognathus* is very
> > well known...
>
> Yes, I agree with what you're saying, especially since Allen (2004) 
> found it to be non-dinosaurian, whether including the skull or not.  
> Segisaurus has similar problems (Senter and Hutchinson, 2001), though 
> at least it seems definitively theropod.  Maybe (Coelophysis bauri <- 
> Liliensternus liliensterni) would be better for Coelophysidae?

How about (C. bauri <- Dilophosaurus wetherilli, Passer domesticus)?

Nick Pharris
Department of Linguistics
University of Michigan