[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tetanurae
On 12/6/06, dinoboygraphics@aol.com <dinoboygraphics@aol.com> wrote:
I wouldn't use Crylophosaurus; theer have been a few good presentations
(hopefully papers will be in press soon) on the material, but it
doesn't look tetanuran to me.
I realize Scott and David already know this, but I'll emphasize the
point, anyway:
_Tetanurae_ is a branch-based clade, so its basalmost members are
probably virtually indistinguishable from the basalmost membes of the
sister clade, _Ceratosauria_. Also, of course, _Tetanurae_ and
_Ceratosauria_ are equally old. (This is true by definition; it
doesn't matter whether coelophysoids are ceratosaurs or not.)
--
T. Michael Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com
ISPN Forum: http://www.phylonames.org/forum/