Re: Tetanurae

["T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>]

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/