[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Tetanurae

To: twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com, dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Tetanurae
From: Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:06:20 +0100
In-reply-to: <BAY101-F20B17E380B2A6C0F2C97CA98DC0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY113-F21A63534376D7659A8DF31ACDC0@phx.gbl> <BAY101-F20B17E380B2A6C0F2C97CA98DC0@phx.gbl>
Reply-to: andreasj@gmail.com
Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On 12/7/06, Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com> wrote:

Paul's (1988) classification of theropods was not cladistic.  But if, for
example, a cladistic analysis does recover abelisauroids as the sister taxon
to carcharodontosaurids (as has come up), then Tetanurae would certainly
contract (and would probably be equivalent in content to Neotetanurae!).


Well, Sereno's definition of Neotetanurae is Allosaurus +
Carcharodontosaurus + Sinraptor + Passer, so if Abelisauroidea and
Carcharodontosauridae are sisters, he'd end up with Tetanurae as a
subclade of Neotetanurae!

--
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

References:
- Re: Tetanurae
  - From: Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>
- Re: Tetanurae
  - From: Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>