Re: New sauropod paper

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Jay <sappororaptor@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I totally agree here. If that's the case, then say bye to Jobaria.

Well... _Jobaria_ can stay, whatever happens.  The type species for 
_Rebbachisaurus_ is _R. garasbae_, so the fate of _R. tamesnensis_ does not 
impact on the validity of either _Jobaria_ or _Rebbachisaurus_.

> Similarly, how was Deltadromeus diagosed differentially from  
> Bahariasaurus?

The situation regarding _Deltadromeus_ vs _Bahariasaurus_ vs 
_Carcharodontosaurus_ needs a second (or third) look, given that the 
hypodigms for all three taxa are highly uncertain.  _Carcharodontosaurus_ is 
certainly valid, but _Deltadromeus_ vs _Bahariasaurus_ *might* be the same 
(in which case, _B_ takes priority).  Sereno et al. (1996) distinguished 
_Deltadromeus_ from _Bahariasaurus_ using pelvic characters; but there is a 
rumor going round that Sereno &c mistook the pubis for an ischium, which 
negates two of these characters.  Also, some caudal vertebrae assigned to 
_Bahariasaurus_ may actually belong to _Carcharodontosaurus_.  Throw 
_Sigilmassasaurus_ and _Spinosaurus_ into the mix, and things get really 
interesting...

Confused?  I am.

Cheers

Tim